Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State was asked—

Deregulation

Paul Flynn: What action is planned to reduce expenditure by way of deregulation.

Christopher Leslie: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to apologise to you and to the House for his absence today. Deputising for the Prime Minister, he is undertaking a series of international meetings on a number of matters, including the coalition against terrorism and climate change.
	The Government's programme of regulatory reform seeks to reduce burdens and costs for both the public sector and the business community. For example, by reducing the burden of paperwork and form-filling in schools, the Government have saved more than 2.5 million teacher hours in primary schools this year.

Paul Flynn: The Transport Research Laboratory has claimed that changing just one regulation would reduce casualties, avoiding the deaths of 140 people a year and 520 serious injuries. The Policy Studies Institute also claims that there would be immense benefits for the tourist trade and the elderly if we adopted European standard time and dumped the absurd practice of changing our times twice a year. Does my hon. Friend, who is in the infancy of what I am sure will be a brilliant career, do his best to bring more light to the nation and ensure that our waking hours more precisely match our working hours?

Christopher Leslie: I am not sure whether that is a compliment. There are pros and cons on both sides of the argument about keeping British summer time. One advantage would be lighter afternoons, and I suppose that the disadvantage would be darker mornings. I understand that an experiment took place in the late 1960s to retain summer time—that was definitely before my time.

Mark Oaten: Does the Minister believe that yesterday's Budget statement will lead to less bureaucracy and red tape for business, or more? Can he give a commitment that the Cabinet Office will undertake a regulatory review and assessment on that Budget?

Christopher Leslie: The answer is yes. The Government are always making sure that we reduce red tape and burdensome bureaucracy wherever possible. Conservative Members object to measures such as the minimum wage, family leave and working time protection. They regard them as over-burdensome pieces of bureaucracy—I regard them as essential pieces of social reform.

Andrew Lansley: The Minister will recall that none of the initial orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 that were subject to consultation implied any decrease in Government expenditure. However, one would have meant an increase—the vaccine damage payment scheme consultation. Can the Minister tell the House when that order is expected to be introduced to the House?

Christopher Leslie: I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it. The programme of regulatory reform orders is beginning within Government so that we can use that tool as a mechanism for removing over-burdensome regulations wherever possible. I shall try and find out more information on that for the hon. Gentleman.

Tim Collins: If it is the case, as the Minister claims, that the Government are deregulating and relieving burdens on business—I pay tribute to him for being able to say that with a straight face—why did the Director General of the CBI complain recently that last year more regulations had been passed than in any previous year in history?

Christopher Leslie: We have heard this story before. I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about statutory instruments, 95 per cent. of which have no burdensome impact on business. He needs to distinguish between measures that introduce support and help for ordinary working people in this country. He regards those as unnecessary costs, whereas the mass of working people think that they are essential.

Patrick Cormack: How many regulations have been abolished since the Government came into office in May 1997?

Christopher Leslie: A number of changes are made all the time in terms of reducing regulation. We are genuinely engaged in an earnest effort to reduce those regulations that are burdensome. If the hon. Gentleman has specific suggestions to make to the House and the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform, many Members will be willing and able to listen to them.

Government Regional Offices

Stephen Ladyman: If he will make a statement on the operational priorities for Government regional offices.

Barbara Roche: The Government offices for the regions bring together the activities and interests of many different Departments. The operational priorities of the Government offices are to deliver programmes to specific Departments and to achieve a joined-up approach.

Stephen Ladyman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. From my conversations with the Government office of the south-east, I know that it is committed to adding value to the work of other agencies and local authorities. I applaud it for that commitment. However, when it administers funds, such as the European social fund, on behalf of local authorities, there are times when it issues the funds in short-term tranches. That makes it difficult to build quality projects because it is difficult to recruit people under short-term funding. Will my hon. Friend ensure that any red tape—whether UK or European—that limits the projects to short-term funding is swept away so that we can build quality projects?

Barbara Roche: I know of the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in the subject and that he has held constructive meetings with the Government office of his region. I understand his point. European programme funds cover a six-year period, but some of the match funding can be for all that period or it can be reviewed annually. I shall certainly consider the points that he raises.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will not the increase of regional government lead to the death of the county councils?

Barbara Roche: No. The hon. Gentleman should consider the commitment on regional governance that we made in our manifesto. We said that we would examine the issue and we have already told the House that we would introduce a White Paper on it. We particularly highlighted the case of unitary authorities.

Brian White: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, when regional development agencies adjoin each other, they work across regional boundaries in a seamless fashion and do not create new artificial boundaries?

Barbara Roche: Yes, absolutely. The boundaries of the Government offices of the regions are always a contentious matter, and everyone will have a view on where the boundaries should be. I think that we have now settled the matter, but it is important that Government offices of the regions work together. We have the co-ordination unit to make sure that they do just that.

Government Policy Co-ordination

Michael Fabricant: What steps he is taking to co-ordinate the promotion of Government policy on (a) health care and (b) transport.

Christopher Leslie: Policy on health care and transport is obviously the responsibility of the respective Departments. However, the Prime Minister's delivery unit is working with those Departments to monitor effective efforts towards key targets, to take stock of progress made and to help to overcome the barriers or obstacles to delivery as rapidly as possible.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. Does he agree that the job of promotion, which is what my question is about, is the responsibility of Government information officers? Will he join me in praising the work of the information officers who are employed by the civil service? Will he explain precisely why 16 out of 18 senior Government information officers have been sacked or pensioned off before their time by this Government since 1997?

Christopher Leslie: I am very happy to pay tribute to the information officers who work for the civil service. They do a fantastic job. There is obviously a constant change of personnel in all sorts of divisions. I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding, but it is no wonder that his question relates to promotion. I know that he is always angling on that point.

David Taylor: Following the change in direction on health care so clearly articulated by the Chancellor yesterday and so warmly welcomed by many Labour Members, does my hon. Friend believe that greater investment will go into the promotion of what is without doubt a more democratic and more socialist agenda?

Christopher Leslie: As a democratic socialist, I certainly share my hon. Friend's view. Some £8 billion worth of new hospitals are being built, and 17,000 extra nurses and 7,000 extra doctors have been employed since 1997. We have still a long way to go. We have to maintain progress to ensure that we deliver a health service that is free at the point of use, available to all who need it and is of a high standard fit for the 21st century.

Regional Co-ordination Unit

Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on the work of the regional co-ordination unit.

Barbara Roche: In particular, the work of the regional co-ordination unit is achieving better scrutiny of proposals for new area-based initiatives and the review of existing ones.

Bob Blizzard: When my hon. Friend tries to co-ordinate the work of regional public bodies in the eastern region, will she examine the East of England Inward Investment Agency, which was set up by the previous Government? Will she consider the serious under-performance of that organisation and its failure to attract any inward investment to those parts of the region that need it? Why are we spending public money supposedly attracting firms to places where they would go anyway? Is that not rather like giving grants to people to sell ice creams on a hot day?

Barbara Roche: I know that the agency is targeting potential investors in the oil, gas and renewable energy sector, but I will certainly consider the points that my hon. Friend raises. He might also like to know that a seminar organised by Business Link Suffolk, which involves the Government office, is taking place shortly. It will also involve a number of local businesses. I am sure that my hon. Friend's interest in that matter will be greatly appreciated.

Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister establish whether the unit was consulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the distribution, as from Friday, of the exemption from stamp duty of 4,000 deprived wards in the United Kingdom? Will she also try to discover—this has astonished us in Southend—why the Milton ward, to which the Minister made an excellent visit, is not covered by those regulations, bearing in mind that it is more deprived than almost any other area of England or Wales?

Barbara Roche: I know of the great interest that the hon. Gentleman has in deprivation, in particular how we can get help to the most deprived wards in the country. I am grateful to him for his remarks on my visit, which I greatly enjoyed. I will certainly consider the issue and bring it to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends across the Government.

Joyce Quin: Can my hon. Friend assure me that the regional co-ordination unit and her Department in general will work closely with regional development agencies in the run-up to the publication of the promised White Paper on regional government? Although regional government involves more than just economic development, does she agree that it will be essential for the RDAs to be at the heart of such governments when they are established?

Barbara Roche: I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I have made a number of regional visits, as has my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to discuss that subject. We have met representatives of the Assemblies and the RDAs. It is clear that a great deal of good work is being undertaken on economic regeneration.

Public Services

Peter Pike: What recent assessment his Department has made of the delivery of public services in the regions in England.

Christopher Leslie: Delivering improved local public services across all regions of the country is our top priority, and the Cabinet Office is working to ensure that Government offices for the regions play a key role in helping to deliver results.

Peter Pike: My hon. Friend will know that the Deputy Prime Minister visited Burnley and east Lancashire twice recently. He will also be well aware of the problems that that north-west region faces, in particular the large number of empty private sector houses and the heavy dependence on manufacturing sector jobs. More than 30 per cent. of the work force are employed in manufacturing, which is experiencing major problems following 11 September. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the RDA will play a key role in the regeneration of that part of the north-west and in the delivery of public services and jobs?

Christopher Leslie: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work and efforts to rebuild the community, especially that in his constituency. He voices important concerns about the need to tackle crime and housing problems, and it is essential to rebuild the local economy. The Deputy Prime Minister considered such matters during his visit. The task force chaired by Lord Clarke will publish its report in December and is considering the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister understand that if he closed down the hapless Government regional office in the south-east tomorrow there would be no tears in Bracknell or elsewhere in the region because we think that it creates unnecessary extra Government bureaucracy and is a huge waste of taxpayers' money?

Christopher Leslie: If the regional office in the right hon. Gentleman's area is such a waste of time why did his Government set it up in the first place? The Government offices for the regions need to be enhanced and supported so that we ensure that they work not just on traditional housing and regeneration issues, but on planning, environment and anti-crime measures. The area-based initiatives—not least those started by the right hon. Gentleman's Government—need to be properly reformed so that they make a difference on the ground. [Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I call for quiet in the Chamber. It is only fair to the Minister and to those who are asking a question.

Joan Walley: May I say how pleased I am to hear that the Minister is taking joined-up thinking so seriously? Some months ago I was promised someone on secondment from the Cabinet Office to assist with urban regeneration in Burslem. Will he consider whether those resources can now be made available to assist with the regeneration that is so urgently needed in north Staffordshire?

Christopher Leslie: It is important that there are secondments from central Government to localities where extra efforts are required. I shall certainly endeavour to look further into the case that my hon. Friend mentioned. We should not only focus on regeneration at the grass roots but delegate people from central Departments to areas where it matters most.

Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the efficient delivery of public services can be disrupted and delayed by extended staff absences? Will he initiate an in-depth analysis to determine whether Departments and public services need to put in place arrangements to prevent such disruption and delay?

Christopher Leslie: I am responsible for overseeing the day-to-day running of the civil service, and I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that attention to sickness and absence levels throughout public services is central to ensuring good performance by a happy and healthy work force. I shall continue to try to monitor those important factors.

David Heath: Does the Minister agree that the effective delivery of high quality public services depends less on the grand panjandrums of Whitehall and more on the morale and enthusiasm of the civil servants who work directly with the public throughout the country? To that end, does he agree that there is a need for a civil service Act and a national framework for civil servants' pay?

Christopher Leslie: The Government are certainly committed to introducing a civil service Bill when parliamentary time allows. On a national framework, my own feeling is that departmental managers need the flexibility to incentivise good performance in their own Department. We are in discussion with civil service unions and others about these issues.

Tim Collins: Is it an aim of Government regional policy to reduce the north- south gap?

Christopher Leslie: There are differences within regions just as there are differences between them, and we have to ensure that each has an opportunity to develop its economic strategies in as fair and equal a manner as possible. There are serious issues that require attention. Of course, making sure that the most deprived areas of our country get the assistance that they need is a priority, and one which I would hope the hon. Gentleman shares.

Tim Collins: It was a very simple question and it needed only a yes or no answer. Is it Government policy to reduce the north-south gap, or not? I have to say that if it is, Government policy is failing because the latest independent figures show that the gap is widening. Would the Minister like to try again? Is it his policy to reduce that gap—yes or no?

Christopher Leslie: Well, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the policy is as simple as saying that the north is poor and the south is wealthier, I really think that he needs to get a grip. There are significant pockets of poverty and deprivation in the south of England, just as there are wealthier areas in the north of the country. We need to take a more sophisticated approach to the whole question.

Government Regional Offices

Paddy Tipping: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Government offices for the regions.

Barbara Roche: Government offices contribute to the delivery of the programmes of a number of different Departments. Those are set out in the corporate plan for the Government office network.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister agree that, when Government offices for the regions primarily deliver social policies, and regional development agencies primarily deliver the economic agenda, it is important that their aims and objectives fit closely? Is not the best way of ensuring that to work towards elected regional government across England as quickly as possible?

Barbara Roche: If one looks at the different programmes, one certainly sees that some have an economic aspect and some a social aspect. It is clear that an area cannot be regenerated socially without economic regeneration. A White Paper on regional governance will be published as soon as possible.

Freedom of Information Act

Helen Jackson: What steps he is taking to implement the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in his Department.

Christopher Leslie: The Cabinet Office established a new unit to ensure open government early last year, whose tasks include specifically implementing the provisions of the Government's Freedom of Information Act in the Department.

Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he try not to be too timid about this excellent legislation, perhaps considering in the Cabinet Office at least embarking on full implementation of the Act next year, so that other Departments and, indeed, the 300 or 400 quangos covered by the legislation, can follow its lead?

Christopher Leslie: I am pleased to say that the Cabinet Office will be making progress on issuing publication schemes from—I think—next November. It is important that we get the whole area right, so that freedom of information legislation is implemented properly and thoroughly, and not in a half-hearted fashion. We want to put a greater volume of information into the public arena, and I shall certainly try not to be as timid as my hon. Friend suspects.

Julian Lewis: If the Government are so keen on freedom of information, why is a mole hunt under way to find the identity of the public servant who leaked the existence of Jo Moore's disgraceful e-mail? Will the Minister give an assurance that if that person is found he will be promoted for furthering freedom of information, and not sacked?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is discussing a conspiracy theory, which is unusual for him. If he is looking for moles, the best we can find is the one from last week's by-election in Ipswich. If that reminds him of the true moles in this place, then so much the better.

Tony Wright: The Minister will know that there is disappointment about the Government's decision to delay implementation of the legislation. Will he ensure that the civil service does not take that as a lack of seriousness on our part and put it on the back burner, and that it is told that we are proud of being the first Government to have introduced such legislation and that we mean business with it?

Christopher Leslie: We are certainly proud to introduce the Freedom of Information Act, but we must ensure that we actively consider the new publication schemes, putting more information into the public arena. We must ensure that our commitment to open government is not only genuine but effective and efficient. Getting it right operationally is extremely important.

Norman Baker: Is not the Government's commitment to freedom of information becoming a little threadbare? First, the Minister who was responsible for implementing it was sacked for being too radical, and then the proposals were watered down. Now we have an implementation date of 2005. Will the Minister publish the information that led him to conclude that 2005—an absurdly faraway date—would be an appropriate date for implementation, or is that too subject to exclusion from publication?

Christopher Leslie: I feel that sometimes a little congratulation from the Liberal Democrats would be in order, particularly since the idea of a freedom of information Act was opposed by the Conservative party during the 1997 election campaign. Ensuring that we implement publication schemes from next November is extremely important, and the Government are committed to that. We will find ways of ensuring that we get right the implementation of the Act.

Government Office for the North East

David Clelland: When he last met representatives of the Government office for the north east.

Barbara Roche: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited the Government office for the north east on 13 August, and I visited Government offices on 22 November.

David Clelland: During the discussions, was mention made of the forthcoming White Paper on regional government, in particular the role of the regional development agencies? Does my hon. Friend agree that regional government without economic development powers would be a timid beast indeed; will she resist those forces in the Department of Trade and Industry who would retain powers over RDAs even after regional government is introduced; and will she assure me that RDAs will form an integral part of regional government?

Barbara Roche: There have been discussions on regional governance. As for what that will be, my hon. Friend will have to wait until the White Paper is published.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

David Burnside: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 November.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

David Burnside: Recently in Ulster, Her Majesty's Government have removed the royal title and the Crown insignia from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and prohibited the flying of the Union flag from police stations, and they plan to remove the royal coat of arms in courtrooms. Does the Prime Minister believe that those changes symbolise a deep-seated republican tendency at the heart of his Government? Do the Government intend to apply similar changes to police forces and the judiciary in England and Wales?

Tony Blair: Let me make two points. First, the principle of consent—that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom as long as the majority of people there wish it—is absolute; it is the founding principle of the Belfast agreement. Secondly, the proposals are for consultation. It is important to ensure that we get the broadest possible support for a police service and criminal justice system that command support right across the communities. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will play his part in that effort, because it is an essential part of the new dispensation in Northern Ireland that we have both a police service—I pay tribute to the work that the RUC has done over many years—and a criminal justice system that command support and can be part of the new Northern Ireland that is being built.

Brian Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to update the House on the position of the 12 British tourists held in jail in Spain—[Hon. Members: "Greece."]—sorry, Greece for plane-spotting, especially Wayne Groves, a resident of Tamworth? Will he pass on to the British consulate the thanks of the family for the work its staff have done? Will he also take this opportunity to assure the many British tourists who are considering booking holidays in Greece that it is a safe place to visit?

Tony Blair: I have spoken to the Greek Prime Minister about the issue and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to his Greek counterpart today. I hope that the case can be resolved. Whatever the difficulties, most people understand that those people are indeed tourists. I hope that the issue can be resolved as swiftly and satisfactorily as possible.

Iain Duncan Smith: Has the number of patients waiting more than an hour in casualty gone up or down since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister?

Tony Blair: The number of patients waiting more than an hour in casualty has gone up—that is correct. However, the overall number of patients waiting has fallen by more than 100,000. In particular, the number of patients waiting more than six months has fallen.

Iain Duncan Smith: In that case, will the Prime Minister tell us in what areas the health service has gone backwards under his Government, as his party chairman says?

Tony Blair: I have just mentioned one, but perhaps I should read the entire quote from the chairman of the Labour party. He said:
	"The fact is there have been massive improvements in some parts of the NHS but other areas where we've . . . gone backwards".
	If the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at both sides of the equation, let me give him one example of an area in which treatment has improved. In 1997, 63 per cent. of patients urgently referred with suspected cancer were seen within two weeks. Today, the figure is 93 per cent. By the end of the year, there will be 13 new anti-cancer drugs made available to NHS patients. By the end of next month, we shall have successfully introduced the maximum one-month wait from GP referral to treatment for children and for testicular cancer and leukaemia. By the end of this year, there will be a maximum of a one-month wait from diagnosis to treatment for breast cancer patients. In this year alone, we are putting into the NHS over 100 new cancer scanners.
	Yes, in some areas there is still a very great deal to do, but in other areas where the extra investment has gone in, there have been improvements. The difference is that we on the Government Benches believe in a national health service system that is funded out of general taxation and is free at the point of use. The purpose of the Conservatives is to ensure that people are forced to pay for the treatment that they have.

Iain Duncan Smith: I remind the Prime Minister that his chairman said that they had "gone backwards". The right hon. Gentleman does not want to answer that part of the question. Let me tell him that the number of people waiting over a year for their operations is up; the number of people waiting over three months to see a consultant is up; the number of people waiting more than an hour in casualty is up; and the number of unfilled GP posts is up.
	The Prime Minister used to tell everybody that he had 24 hours to save the health service. Yesterday, his Chancellor said that he needed another 20 years. When did it go from 24 hours to 24 years?

Tony Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at areas where the NHS has improved, we find that the number of people waiting over six months has improved. The number of people waiting for cancer treatment has improved. The number of people waiting for cardiac treatment for over a year has improved. The number of doctors is up. The number of nurses is up. The number of beds in hospitals this year is up. The number of new hospital buildings is up.
	Yes, it is true that the process will take substantial extra resources. The issue is whether those resources come from general taxation or from social insurance, which is specific taxation on employers or employees, or from forcing people to pay for private medical care. The fact is—I challenge the right hon. Gentleman directly on this—that it is the policy of the Conservative party to say that those who can should pay for some of their medical services.

Iain Duncan Smith: The policy of the Conservative party is to improve the health service, not make excuses for it. [Interruption.] Oh yes, that is right.
	As for the Chancellor, he gave us a long lecture yesterday about consensus. The consensus that the people outside the House know about concerns why they should have to wait in pain for routine operations or die sooner than their counterparts in Europe, and the fact that the fourth largest economy should be able to offer decent treatment to its people. Those are the consensus issues for the public.
	The only consensus for the right hon. Gentleman, his Chancellor and his Government is that between him and the trade unions—[Interruption.] to make sure that there will be no change that threatens their vested interests. Why does the right hon. Gentleman always put favours to friends ahead of the interests of patients?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman denied specifically that it was the policy of the Conservative party to say that people should pay for some of their treatment. Perhaps he would like to comment on the memorandum from the shadow Treasury spokesman to the shadow Chancellor dated 12 November—just two weeks ago—in which he said:
	"As you are aware, we remain vulnerable to the irritating attack that we are the party who will be cutting back on health care expenditure to reduce taxation."
	He then goes on to say:
	"The only propositions which make sense are . . .
	(iii) the reforms which we will be proposing will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for their health care services."
	In the interests of debate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what was meant by that.

Iain Duncan Smith: Perhaps I ought to remind the Prime Minister that all taxpayers in this country pay for their health service. He said only a couple of months ago that reforming the NHS was
	"a vital test for the modern Labour party".
	He also said,
	"it's not reform that is the enemy of public services it's the status quo".
	Does not the Chancellor's statement yesterday prove that he has flunked that test and that there is no further reform—none at all? He has handcuffed the Government to the whole status quo and the state monopoly. He has condemned patients to wait longer, suffer more and die earlier than our neighbours in Europe. The Prime Minister does not have a clue and does not have a cure for the health service.

Tony Blair: There is a perfectly simple distinction between a national health service that should indeed be reformed, as the Chancellor said yesterday and as I say today, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to force people out of the health service to pay for their treatment—[Interruption.] There can be no other explanation of the words that he used. There are two issues in the debate. First, do we need more resources for health care in this country? Answer, yes. Secondly, do we get those extra resources from general taxation payments, from specific payments like social insurance in France and Germany, which is also a form of taxation, or by making people pay directly for their health care? We believe in the first. What on earth does the right hon. Gentleman believe in?

Robert Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a much more rational airports policy? Is it not ludicrous that congestion is being increased by the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, when many people, business men and tourists who live in the north of England have to traipse down to London before they can start their journey abroad? Is it not time to expand airports such as Liverpool, Leeds-Bradford and Newcastle? Is that not the rational approach to airports policy?

Tony Blair: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I hope that he will add Teesside, in which I have a particular interest, to that list. We have to do two things. Because of the greater demands on air travel by a range of different sources, we will have to develop Heathrow, but we will have to develop our regional airports as well. That is one reason why the recent developments in Manchester are welcome. We therefore need to do both things, but I entirely agree that additional pressures on air travellers will mean that we need increased capacity.

Charles Kennedy: In January last year, the Prime Minister gave a specific personal commitment on national television that his Administration would raise spending on health provision in this country to the European Union average by 2005. What significance should we all read into the Chancellor's statement yesterday afternoon which made no mention of that whatsoever?

Tony Blair: Only the Liberal Democrats could read the Chancellor's statement as being ungenerous in funding the national health service. The fact is, we need to increase substantially the resources going into the health service. The benefit of what the Chancellor said in the report that he launched yesterday is that, for the first time, we can have a serious and proper debate about where that money comes from. The one thing that is ludicrous to suppose, although there are parts of the media that did so this morning, is that the choice is between, on the one hand, a health care system funded by general taxation and, on the other, a better funded health care system that somehow comes for free. The issue in all cases will be how to fund that health care properly, given that we need a substantial increase in resources. We have made it clear that along with that increase in resources must come substantial reforms in the national health service to make it work efficiently.

Charles Kennedy: Methinks the Prime Minister does protest too much. I just want a straight answer to a straight question—[Interruption.] I am trying to be generous. The Prime Minister committed himself to raising health expenditure in our country to the European Union average by 2005. Is that still the policy of his Government?

Tony Blair: Of course it is. That is precisely the point of the Chancellor's announcement yesterday. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is not being generous—we are. Whatever system we have, the money must come in the end from general taxation, from social insurance, or from people paying—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

Tony Blair: The purpose of what the Chancellor is saying is to get additional money into our health care system. After yesterday's statement, only the Liberal Democrats could still be saying that it is not enough.

Tony Banks: We all share concern for the people of Afghanistan, but will my right hon. Friend show compassion for the animals of Afghanistan? Has he seen the pictures of the animals in Kabul zoo such as Marjan the lion and that poor black bear that had its nose sliced off by some barbarian? Will my right hon. Friend call to Downing street the concerned animal welfare organisations so that a relief operation could be mounted to save the animals in Kabul zoo and in Afghanistan? If he is prepared to do that, I know that millions of animal lovers throughout the country will be eternally grateful to him.

Tony Blair: I understand the point that my hon. Friend raises; it has been raised by many people in the past few weeks. I cannot undertake to arrange the specific meeting for which he asks, but I will consider carefully what he said, and make sure both that the issue is taken up by Government and that he is given a satisfactory reply.

Michael Spicer: Why cannot we have a proper public inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster? What does the Prime Minister have to hide?

Tony Blair: There are inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak, which will indeed be public. On any basis, those inquiries must look at all the various aspects of the matter. I do not believe that a full-dress statutory tribunal costing millions of pounds and probably lasting two or three years would be helpful to the farming industry or the future of farming production.

Brian Iddon: Some health authorities are spending well below their target funding levels—about £13 million, in the case of Wigan and Bolton. Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's announcement of extra money for the national health service, along with the fact that we are setting up new primary care trusts next year, provide an excellent opportunity to tackle that problem? That, in turn, would allow the Royal Bolton hospital to increase its capacity in order to meet an ever-increasing demand for its services?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. It is not just the additional resources that are needed in the health service; we also need to carry out the reforms, in particular so that by 2004, 75 per cent. of the money in the health service will be spent through primary care trusts. That is a huge reform in itself. A series of negotiations is under way that will change the contracts of doctors, consultants and nurses to provide greater flexibility and better incentives. The national service frameworks in each main disease area will give us national minimum standards right across the piece. My hon. Friend is right. We must make sure that the money is properly spent to deliver better health care. The reform and the investment go together.

London Underground

Richard Ottaway: What are his plans for the financing of London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

Tony Blair: Our plans for the modernisation of the tube will unlock some £13 billion for investment and maintenance over the next 15 years. We believe that the public-private partnership is the best way to do that.

Richard Ottaway: I asked the Prime Minister what his plans were, not how he is getting on. Does he recall his manifesto pledge on the underground:
	"Better transport is crucial to the future of London. . . Labour plans a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground"?
	That was not in 2001. That was in 1997, and nothing has happened since then. Will the Prime Minister show his commitment to devolution, stop arguing with the mayor, and fully involve the Greater London Authority in working out what is best for London's long-suffering underground passengers?

Tony Blair: We will proceed with the plans that we have. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he is probably in a worse position than any other Member of this House to raise the issue of the tube. If we are quoting what people said in 1997, let me quote what he said in July of that year. He referred to the
	"now glaringly obvious success of railway privatisation"
	and asked the Government to
	"admit that the privatisation of London Underground is the best way forward."—[Official Report, 29 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 139.]

Engagements

Peter Duncan: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, of the 416,000 stakeholder pensions that have been sold to date, a miserable 1 per cent. have been sold to the target group?

Tony Blair: It is important, as we have said, that the stakeholder pensioner group is expanded, but as a result of the reforms that we have introduced, for the first time, many of the people in that group will have access to low-cost pensions; otherwise, they would simply have no access to pensions at all.

Neil Gerrard: In the light of repeated statements by senior United States politicians and officials, including President Bush, suggesting that countries other than Afghanistan may become targets for the United States, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will not support the extension of military action to countries such as Iraq, Sudan, Somalia or Yemen?

Tony Blair: First of all, it might be helpful to quote what President Bush actually said. He said:
	"Afghanistan is still just the beginning. If anybody harbours a terrorist, they're a terrorist . . . If they house terrorists, they're terrorists . . . I can't make it any more clearly to . . . nations around the world. If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorise nations, they will be held accountable. And as for Mr. Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in his country, to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction."
	I totally agree with those sentiments. I have always said that this operation will have two phases. The first is in Afghanistan and our military action is focused there. The second is to take in a deliberative and considered way what action we can against international terrorism in all its forms. That has been the position from the beginning. It is the position of myself, the American Administration and everybody else in the international coalition, and that remains the case.

Bob Russell: While I acknowledge that equality of opportunity for our young people is something that you support—[Hon. Members: "He supports."] While that is something that he supports, is the Prime Minister aware that funding for young people in our sixth-form colleges is approximately 30 per cent. less than that provided for young people attending sixth forms in schools? I acknowledge that that problem arises from the formula created by the last Conservative Government, which provides roughly £1,000 a year less, but when will he increase the funding to the same level?

Tony Blair: What we can say is this: we recognise that there is a gap between the way in which schools and sixth-form and further education colleges are funded. It is for that reason that an increase of, I think, about 12 per cent. in real terms, will be going to further education colleges. It is also for that reason that we have changed the way in which funding is provided to sixth forms in schools, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges, through the Learning and Skills Council. What we need to do, without in any way penalising sixth forms in schools, is to lift up the funding that is given specifically to sixth-form and further education colleges.

Julia Drown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the significant additional funds given to Swindon schools under this Labour Government, it is wrong that areas with better exam results, such Chingford and Woodford Green, get £1,000 more per student than Swindon schools? Will he take steps to ensure that that inequality is addressed, not in two years' time, but in next year's settlement?

Tony Blair: I think that what I can promise my hon. Friend is that we will make sure that Swindon gets the extra resources that are, of course, going to schools up and down this country. I understand the arguments about the standard spending assessment and how it is calculated. She will know that the Government are consulting on that now. I think that it is probably wise not to say anything more at this stage.

Edward Davey: Does the Prime Minister think that the transportation of nuclear fuel and the production of nuclear power are more or less safe in Britain following the terrorist outrages of 11 September? What conclusion does he draw?

Tony Blair: The conclusion that I draw is that the very strict regulations covering the transportation of nuclear waste should continue. They are, and have been, in force and are very carefully monitored. I do not believe that there is any increased terrorist threat in this respect.

Mike Gapes: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that pensioners were rewarded for saving, and got a guaranteed income and guaranteed increases? Does he think that pensioners in households that receive £200 every winter for the rest of this Parliament will agree that that is a cock-eyed way of increasing pensions?

Tony Blair: I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) will remember that those words were used to describe, I think, the minimum income guarantee and the winter fuel allowance, but that was wrong. What was announced yesterday for pensioners is in addition to the £200 winter fuel allowance and the free TV licences for the over-75s. Almost 5.5 million pensioners will benefit from the new pension credit, and there is also the minimum income guarantee. All this is about creating a stronger and fairer country, particularly for those people who have reached the end of their working lives and who need some security in their old age.

Graham Brady: Will the Prime Minister give a personal guarantee that there will be no change in the sovereignty of the people or the territory of Gibraltar without the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar?

Tony Blair: We stick absolutely by the 1969 resolution, which makes it clear that there should not be a change in the constitutional status of Gibraltar without the consent of the people there. I strongly believe that the Brussels process—which was, after all, started under the previous Conservative Government—which allows Britain and Spain to discuss these issues sensibly, should go forward. It would be very unfortunate if it did not do so. I also believe—I say this frankly to the people of Gibraltar—that it would be better if the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and the Gibraltar Government participated in that process.

Graham Allen: My right hon. Friend spoke last week of missed opportunities in Europe. Does he agree that a European constitution which defined the rights of the nation states as well as the duties of the European Union, and which placed subsidiarity at the head of that text, would place a road block in the way of those who want a European superstate and reassure those who see Britain and Europe's future together?

Tony Blair: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that an important part of the debate on the future of Europe is to try to draw up a proper list of the competencies of the European Union. It is also important to ensure that when Europe needs to co-operate more effectively, it can do so, and to identify areas in which Europe may decide to do less. What was interesting about the paper prepared by France and Germany at the end of last week was that there was widespread acknowledgement across Europe that there may well be areas in which we need to work more closely together—for example, the single market, immigration and asylum, organised crime, and defence policy. There are, however, other areas—notably those relating to the regulation of the European Union—in which it is important that we take powers back from Brussels to the nation states.

Dominic Grieve: Seeing that it is now clear that taxes are going to have to rise, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the zero rate on children's food and on clothes will be maintained?

Tony Blair: They are fine ones to be telling us about VAT being extended. We have made those commitments quite clear, and they remain our commitments. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have to address this issue. If we believe that more resources are needed for health care, there are only three sources for those resources: general taxation, specific taxation such as social insurance, or forcing people to pay for private medical care. At some point, Conservative Members are going to have to say where they stand on this issue, and not simply in internal memorandums in the Opposition Treasury team.

Paul Flynn: Following the sad decision in the case of the terminally ill woman, Diane Pretty, who was told that the law would not allow her to die with dignity at the time of her choosing, does the Prime Minister think that it is time for a review of the Suicide Act 1961?

Tony Blair: I am not in favour of reviewing that legislation. I understand the strong feelings it arouses, but this is a matter of conscience for hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am afraid that I am not in favour of amending the Act. I am sorry to give my hon. Friend the reply he does not want, but that is what I believe.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Prime Minister prepared to meet me later today to discuss yesterday's announcement by BAE Systems of 1,669 redundancies, a thousand of which are at Woodford on the periphery of my constituency? BAE Systems—British Aerospace that was—is ending regional jet production in this country. That is serious; the job losses in my constituency are serious. Are the Government prepared to consider what might be done to assist in this serious situation?

Tony Blair: First, let me express my sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are affected by the announcement. I understand that, later today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make announcements on how we can achieve the right rapid reaction response to job losses such as those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As for meeting me, I do not know whether that can be done today, but I am happy for us to meet as soon as we possibly can.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: Last week, I undertook to consider Members' concerns about ministerial replies to questions and to make a statement. It would be unwise for me to express a view on the adequacy of a particular ministerial answer. There are bound to be two views on that, and neither is a matter for me. The same is true of complaints about the transfer of individual questions. So I cannot alter the ruling that I gave last Wednesday and sit in judgment on particular answers. Faced with unsatisfactory replies, Members should seek advice—the Table Office is always ready to help—and then they should persist. One pointed question can, in my experience, achieve more than 20 vague ones. But I believe that the House would expect me to go beyond saying that the impartiality of the Chair makes it impossible for me to deal with individual cases. The House's legitimate expectations are contained in the 1997 resolution on ministerial responsibility. It is the duty of a Speaker to do what can properly be done from the Chair in support of the resolution. It is the duty of Ministers to act in the spirit of the resolution. The resolution says:
	"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the Government's code of practice on access to Government information."
	While it is for the House at large, not the Chair alone, to hold Ministers to those obligations, I can best discharge my responsibilities by suggesting ways in which Members might help themselves. The Procedure Committee is undertaking a wide-ranging inquiry into
	"the extent to which the current system of questions contributes to effective parliamentary scrutiny".
	I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be happy to receive chapter and verse if any Member feels that the system is ineffective and scrutiny is being thwarted. The Committee has already sent round a questionnaire, and I am sure that many Members will want to take the opportunity to contribute to the inquiry.
	Secondly, when Ministers refuse to answer questions, they are expected to indicate in their reply why they have refused by reference to the Government's code. The Public Administration Committee regularly looks into the pattern of answering and makes a report to the House. Again, Members aggrieved at a ministerial refusal to answer might get in touch with the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright).
	If Members individually take the appropriate steps to focus their experience through those Committees, and in other ways that may occur to them, the House collectively can make real progress towards better accountability.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order later. First we must hear the statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Benefits Uprating

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the annual uprating of benefits and pensions, on the pension credit, and on new measures to help more people into work.
	As a result of the reforms that we have made, we are again able to do more to give more security to those who are unable to work and to those who have retired. This year, we will again increase some benefits by more than the usual uprating. We are also making fundamental reforms to reward savings. I will explain how the pension credit provides a radical departure from the social security system that we inherited, and announce further measures to provide a greater employment opportunity for those who can work.
	First, let me deal with uprating. Most national insurance benefits will rise in the normal way, according to the retail prices index—which is 1.7 per cent.—and most income-related benefits will rise by the Rossi index, which is also 1.7 per cent. Details will be placed in the Vote Office, and will be published in the Official Report.
	We are also doing more to help parents, so that families can balance their work and home lives. The standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay will rise from £62.20 to £75 next April. That is the largest increase in maternity benefit since 1958, and will help about 340,000 families a year. In 2003 it will rise again, to £100 a week. Moreover, the sure start maternity grant will rise from £300 to £500 next year. In 1997, a new mother on income support would have received just £100 to pay for essential items; from next year, she will receive £500. That is a substantial increase for mothers on lower benefits.
	This year we want to do more to help families who are bringing up children with disabilities. When we came to office, the extra money paid to low-income families with a disabled child was just £21 a week. Last year we increased it by more than £7 a week; this year I can go further. I propose to increase the disabled child premium by another £5 a week—on top of the normal uprating—to a new rate of £35.50. In 2003 it will rise again by £5 over and above inflation, to more than £40 a week on top of basic income support or tax credits. That will benefit about 80,000 children. It will give extra help where it is most needed: it will help families on low incomes, both in and out of work, with disabled children.
	I want to announce a further change. In the past, people with the most severe disabilities found that if they or their partners were in work—often against all the odds—they lost entitlement to the independent living fund, which paid for their essential care. From April next year, the earnings of disabled people and their partners will no longer be taken into account in the independent living fund. That is worth an average of £130 a week to those families. At the same time, we will increase the capital limits in relation to the fund, to extend help to people with savings of up to £18,500. That is a £10,000 increase on the current figure.
	We are also determined to boost pensioner incomes. In 1997, the poorest pensioners were expected to live on just £68.80 a week. Last year we increased the minimum income guarantee to £92 a week; from April next year, the guarantee for a single pensioner will rise by £6 to £98.15 per week. That is an increase of £23 a week for the poorest pensioners, over and above inflation, since we came to office. For couples, the new rate will be £149.80.
	So that all pensioners can share in the rising prosperity, the basic state pension will rise by £3 in April—by £4.80 for married couples. Widows' and bereavement benefits—which, because of the changes we made in 1998, are now paid equally to men and women—will also rise by £3.
	As we promised in our manifesto, the basic state pension will remain the foundation of retirement income. That is why we have announced guaranteed rises for the future of at least £100 a year for single pensioners, and at least £160 a year for couples.
	We also promised to do more to reward pensioners who have saved for their retirement. A year ago, I published a consultation document that set out our proposals to reward thrift. Today, I am publishing our response to that consultation, setting out how the pension credit will work. Copies will be available in the Vote Office. Tomorrow, I shall also publish the Pension Credit Bill.
	All of us have met pensioners who struggled through their working lives to put something by for their retirement, but who then found that they are little or no better off than those who saved nothing. The pension credit will ensure that, in future, it pays to save. The credit works in two ways. First, it will bring pensioners' entitlement up to a guaranteed minimum level of at least £100 a week—or £154 for couples—in 2003, and it will increase in line with earnings for the rest of the Parliament. Secondly, the credit will provide an additional top-up to reward pensioners aged 65 or over who have saved for their retirement. So pensioners with modest second pensions and savings will receive more as a result of their thrift.
	A further change is essential to reward savings. We shall abolish the rule that excludes pensioners with £12,000 or more in savings from any help and introduce a fairer system for taking into account income from savings.
	About half of all pensioners stand to gain from the pension credit: more than 1 million pensioners from increased guaranteed income, and more than 4 million pensioners from the savings reward and the improvements to the rules on the treatment of savings. Two thirds of those who stand to gain from the pension credit are women, half of them over 75. On average, pensioners will gain £400 a year, with some receiving up to £1,000 a year. That is the difference that the pension credit will make.
	Any pensioner with an income below about £135, or couples with an income below £200, will see their hard-earned savings rewarded with extra money, not penalised as in the past. We are also going to make it easier for pensioners to receive all their entitlements. Last year, I said that we would end the weekly means test and the endless form filling, and we shall. The pension credit will be calculated at the same time as the basic state pension, when people retire. For those over 65, whose incomes tend to be more settled, in most cases we shall reassess their income only every five years. Each year, they will see an automatic increase in their pension credit, after the uprating, and that will take account of any changes in their second pensions.
	The pension credit will increase guaranteed income, end the weekly means test and reward thrift. It will also remove an injustice in the system: for the first time, it will pay to have saved. More than 5 million pensioners stand to gain from it.
	I now turn to employment. In the past four years, we have introduced more help than ever before to make work pay and to make work possible. Today, with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am also publishing a paper that demonstrates the need to provide more employment opportunities to those who have missed out in the past. The analysis shows very clearly what happened when we did not have a system that actively helped people into work, and when the then Government took a hands-off approach to unemployment, leaving it all to chance. Between the 1970s and the mid-1990s, the number of lone parents and sick and disabled people on benefits trebled. A whole generation was written off.
	Three immediate conclusions follow from that paper. First, we have to do more to help everyone of working age to get into work wherever possible. That is why, starting next year, we are extending the single gateway to the benefits system—Jobcentre Plus—across the whole country. Everyone of working age will have work-focused interviews to help them into jobs wherever possible.
	Secondly, when people lose their jobs, the evidence shows that the quicker we intervene, the quicker people will get back into work. As the Chancellor said yesterday, our economy is well placed to deal with global uncertainty and the labour market is in a stronger position than in a generation. However, when people do lose their jobs and there are redundancies, we have to take action quickly. In many cases, jobs are available: every month, half a million people enter work or change jobs. So we need to do more to match people with the vacancies that employers are trying to fill. The fact is that 10,000 vacancies are notified to the Employment Service every working day.
	Today, therefore, I can announce that, over the next two years, I am allocating an additional £6 million to the rapid response service which offers prompt help to those who have been made redundant. The money will be used by each region to put together the right response for people in their communities, ensuring that people affected by redundancy have the information and help that they need to find new jobs. The service will work to match people's existing skills to those needed by new employers, and it will ensure that retraining is available to help people move into new industries.
	Thirdly, we have the lowest unemployment level for 25 years, but there are still people who need extra help to take up available jobs in their areas. Over the past four years, the new deal has established a new welfare contract, with more help and support than ever before, in return for greater responsibility on the part of individuals to help themselves. Today, I can announce a further measure that will build on the new deal to help long-term unemployed people who need more intensive help to get into work.
	We will guarantee those people who qualify a full-time job, lasting up to a year, and paid at the national minimum wage. They will have the same employment rights, and they will be entitled to the same in-work benefits, as anyone else. In return, it is not unreasonable to require people to take up that opportunity. We aim to give people a choice of job, but they will not be able to turn down all offers and remain on benefit.
	We will start that approach in six places from April next year, in areas in Sheffield, Cardiff, Oldham, Sunderland, Lambeth and east Ayrshire. We will follow those with a second group over the summer, covering areas in Leeds, south Manchester, Sandwell, Bristol and Greenwich. In the autumn, we will start further pilots in Hackney, Great Yarmouth, Knowsley, Rotherham and Coventry, with provision starting by the end of the year in Burnley, Wrexham, Dundee and Bradford. I will be writing to hon. Members who represent the constituencies involved to ask them to become involved in the new project.
	We will pay for those jobs, working in partnership with employers, local authorities and organisations with experience in offering intermediate labour market opportunities. It is an investment of more than £40 million over two years to equip 5,000 people who are currently long-term unemployed with the skills, the support and the experience of work they need as a stepping stone to jobs in the local labour market.
	Britain's unemployment is the lowest since the 1970s. The new deals have helped hundreds of thousands of people into work. We are determined to ensure employment opportunity for all—including those who have missed out in the past—and these measures will help us to do that. We are doing more to help people into work, and to help those who cannot work. We are also making sure, for the first time, that pensioners are rewarded for their savings. I commend this statement to the House.

David Willetts: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We welcome what he said about benefits for disabled people. At the heart of his statement, however, was a radical shift in policy on pensions. Hon. Members on both sides of the House used to regard the basic state pension as fundamental in determining the income of many pensioners. Those days are now over.
	The minimum income guarantee is to be worth far more than the basic state pension and is to increase in line with earnings, not prices. It will provide the base for the pension credit. More than half of pensioners will therefore have their total income determined by that means test. The value of the basic state pension will be irrelevant for them. The Secretary of State made much play—as did the Chancellor yesterday—of the pledge that the basic state pension will always increase by at least £100, but he owes pensioners an answer to the following crucial question. Will those increases be passed on to pensioners who are on his means test, or is he only able to give that promise because it will cost so little—the value of the basic state pension being offset, pound for pound, against the minimum income guarantee and therefore, under the new regime, irrelevant for millions of pensioners? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, after the changes of which he is so proud, the only pensioners who will enjoy the full value of any increase in the basic state pension will be the most affluent pensioners, for whom it is a relatively modest part of their total income? Is that really what the Government mean by welfare reform?
	By the time the Secretary of State has implemented his proposals, almost 60 per cent. of pensioners will be on means tests. Labour Members used to jeer at means tests, but today they cheer them. Surely, however, they must be concerned—I know that some of them are—by the implications of the policy for savings in general and the Government's stakeholder scheme in particular. How can the Secretary of State be so confident that he is rewarding savings when many more pensioners than ever before will face rates of benefit withdrawal of at least 40 per cent. A 40 per cent. marginal rate is bad enough, but for many pensioners it could be far worse. For a pension credit recipient who is also on housing benefit and council tax benefit, the marginal rate could be 91 per cent.
	If pensioners do not lose housing benefit—I know that the Secretary of State mentions the point in his paper on the pension credit—when they receive the pension credit, it will mean that many more pensioners will be on housing benefit and will face those high marginal rates of benefit withdrawal even further up the income scale.
	The Secretary of State's Department and the Treasury have made an art form of disguising true marginal rates by ignoring council tax benefit and housing benefit in the figures that they bring to the House. You, Mr. Speaker, made a very welcome statement a few minutes ago, in which you referred to the need to answer written questions fully. Last night, I tabled questions to the Chancellor about marginal rates of benefit withdrawal—[Interruption.] No, and I am giving him notice. Those marginal rates of benefit withdrawal were not merely the marginal rates of loss of pension credit, but included the loss of housing benefit and council tax benefit. I look forward to the Treasury's full answers to the questions that I tabled.
	I also welcome the Secretary of State's complete climbdown on the capital rules for pensioners. When he announced that he was abolishing the old formula, he said that he would instead take account of the actual incomes that pensioners earned from their savings. We warned him then that millions of pensioners would be trapped in incredibly complicated and fine judgments with regard to reporting tiny changes in actual income. The right hon. Gentleman has now reverted to a formula almost identical to the one that he was denouncing until a few weeks ago. We welcome the fact that, instead of trying to measure the actual income from savings enjoyed by millions of pensioners, we are once more to have a far simpler formula for the treatment of savings.
	Another question about the Secretary of State's pension proposals concerns the Government's promise that the pension credit would be introduced alongside the minimum income guarantee uprating in April 2003. I am glad that the Chancellor is in the Chamber today, as the table on page 170 of the pre-Budget report makes it clear that the cost of the pension credit when it is introduced in 2003-04 will be £975 million. However, that is only half the £2 billion that it is expected to cost in the following year.
	That can mean one of two things—either that the Government are delaying the implementation of the pension credit beyond their original target of April 2003, or that the pension credit will be so complicated to claim that the Chancellor's forecast is that half of eligible pensioners will not be able to secure the credit in its first year of operation. I should be very interested to hear why the Secretary of State believes that the cost of the pension credit in its first year of operation will be half that of subsequent years.
	I shall look with interest at the report compiled by the Secretary of State and the Chancellor on the new deal in employment. It is striking that, although unemployment has risen recently, the claimant count has risen by only a very modest amount, despite a dramatic increase in economic inactivity. We will read the debate on the matter with interest. The Chancellor suggested that there should be a big national debate on these questions, and we look forward to future debates on economic inactivity.
	However, I hope that those debates do more than analyse the problem of economic inactivity. I hope that they analyse the effectiveness of the Government's claims to be tackling the problem. The Secretary of State knows, from the evaluations published by his Department, that many of the reforms for which he claims credit—such as the new deal for lone parents and the new role for personal job advisers—are not leading to more participants in the schemes finding work. That is what was promised, and the deficit is especially notable in the pilot areas. I hope that the debate analyses the effectiveness of the Secretary of State's policy measures, not just the increase in economic inactivity.
	I regret that the Secretary of State omitted to refer to the changes in family benefits. The Chancellor has introduced four new tax credits already—the working families tax credit, the child care tax credit, the children's tax credit and the baby tax credit. He has now decided to scrap them, and to introduce two other tax credits—the employment tax credit and the integrated child credit. However, just in case any family in Britain was in danger of understanding the regime, the new credits have been renamed, even before they have been introduced. They are now to be called the child tax credit and the working tax credit, and they are not to be confused with the children's tax credit and the working families tax credit.
	Do the Chancellor and the Secretary of State seriously expect Britain's hard-working families to negotiate their way around a system whose structure—let alone the rates involved—changes every year that the Government are in office? Is it any wonder that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux gave a warning last week, which I wish the Chancellor had taken to heart? It said:
	"both the benefit and tax systems are complicated and intimidating to those lacking in financial literacy skills . . . The complexity of benefits and the claiming process is one reason why millions of pounds worth of benefits go unclaimed by people on low incomes . . . more needs to be done to ensure that all low income groups can claim the credits or benefits to which they are entitled".
	That is the challenge which the Government must answer. The relentless tinkering with the structures of credits and tax credits does no service to the very families whom the Chancellor claims he wishes to help.
	The Secretary of State and the Chancellor are still refusing to give any reliable figures for the cost of their new child benefits, although they are due to be implemented in 2003. I believe that the Chancellor is in clear breach of his own code for fiscal stability, which he published with the 1998 Budget and which was subsequently incorporated into the Finance Act 1998. The code for fiscal stability makes it clear that when the Government are planning measures with a fiscal impact, the cost should appear as soon as possible in the pre-Budget report or other economic statements. It states:
	"where the fiscal impact of these decisions and circumstances cannot be quantified with reasonable accuracy by the day the projections are finalised, these impacts should be noted as specific fiscal risks."
	That is the code to which the Chancellor bound himself to bring transparency to fiscal policy. He has failed to live up to that in his treatment of credits and tax credits in his statement yesterday. We ought to know how much they are going to cost; that ought to have been covered in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, and the right hon. Gentleman is in breach of his own obligations for having failed to provide that information.
	The Secretary of State and the Chancellor have lost their way on welfare reform. Ministers have abandoned their promise to introduce a welfare reform Bill. They published figures only last week showing that the number of people claiming income support, which is the main means-tested benefit, is for the first time above the level that Labour inherited in 1997 and has reached almost 4 million.
	The Government are means-testing more and more people for benefits. I had a letter from a pensioner in Huddersfield this morning. I am pleased to see the Chancellor in his place, because the letter is quite simple:
	"I seem to remember, before the 1997 election,"
	Gordon Brown made a clear promise:
	"'If we win, all means-testing of pensioners will end.'"
	"Could you check this for me?"
	What has happened to Labour promises about the abolition of means testing? Benefits expenditure is out of control, means testing is growing and the welfare reform Bill has been abandoned.
	We read in the press that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State work hand in hand. It is true that they work together. The Chancellor puts more taxes on the pension funds that belong to pensioners and more taxes on families and the Secretary of State, then hands the money back in means-tested benefits for which he expects people to be grateful. The Secretary of State is no more a welfare reformer than the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a tax cutter.

Alistair Darling: I assume that that is it, Mr. Speaker.
	Let me go through the various points raised by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). With respect, I think that it is the hon. Gentleman who has lost his way. I recall that this is the man who wanted to get rid of the winter fuel payment. He also wanted to get rid of free television licences, although his policy is now to give them even to people who do not have televisions.
	The hon. Gentleman is also the proud owner of a pension reform policy that would require a 14-year-old boy to start saving £10 a week just to buy back his basic state pension. So much for the hon. Gentleman's concern about the basic state pension.
	The Labour party has made it abundantly clear that the basic state pension will remain the foundation of pension provision. What is more, following my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement earlier this year, we have guaranteed that the basic state pension will go up by at least £100 a year.
	What the hon. Gentleman is actually saying is that he does not like the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit and, if he were to get into power, he would get rid of them. Let us be clear about that. It would mean that the floor of £100, which we think is the minimum that pensioners should have to live on, would go.
	As for pension credit, Conservative Members might come to regret the position that the hon. Gentleman has taken today. The pension credit would mean that a 65-year-old with an occupational pension of £100 a month would receive £60 a month more. If the Tories got back in, that £60 would go.
	At the next election, I would love to come out with any Conservative Member as they go canvassing in the evening, knock on the door and tell a 65-year-old with a £100 occupational pension, "If you vote for the Tories, it will cost you 60 quid." It would be a pleasure to accompany any Tory party canvasser on such an expedition.
	On housing benefit and council tax benefit, the response that I referred to a moment ago makes it clear that people will not lose out as a result of the pension credit being introduced.
	The hon. Gentleman also had something to say about the capital rules. Yes, we have listened to what Age Concern, in particular, has said. It said that, as far as the capital rules are concerned, it would be wrong for pensioners to have to account for every single penny of interest that they might earn. Therefore, as people have asked, we have kept the £6,000 disregard—which we ignore—and we have introduced a far fairer system.
	Let me illustrate the difference between us and the scheme that the Tories promoted. If someone has £10,000 in the bank, that person would have been assumed to have an income of £16 a week under the old Tory scheme. Under the simpler, fairer system that we are introducing, that same person would be assumed to have an income of only £8 a week, half what the Tories were assuming. If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue about which system is better, I am happy to have that argument.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of the pension credit. I have made it clear again and again that the pension credit will be introduced from October 2003. That is why the costings are as they are set out.
	The hon. Gentleman then went on to talk about employment, but I am not sure whether he is for or against our proposals. He referred to the paper on the problems that we face as a result of people of working age being economically inactive—I am sure that, as a semi- academic, he will look forward to reading it—but he should realise that there is a difference between the Labour Government and the Conservative party. We have introduced policies to deal with what is undoubtedly a major problem. Through Jobcentre Plus and other measures we are systematically getting people back into work who were not in work before.
	It is worth reminding the Conservatives about the new deal for young people. More than 300,000 more young people are now in work, double the number that would have been in work had it not been for the measures that we have introduced. The new deal for 25-plus means that nearly 75,000 of that group have gone into work and the new deal for lone parents has led to more than 100,000 of them going into work. None of that would have happened if the Conservatives had remained in office. Therefore, I take with a very large pinch of salt what the hon. Gentleman says.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned two other points. First, he said that income support levels are up. Actually, the number of people on income support is lower than it was in May 1997. He was of course including the fact that far more pensioners receive the minimum income guarantee. I will not apologise for the fact that more pensioners now get more money as a result of what we have introduced.
	The hon. Gentleman then went on to complain about the complexity of tax credits and the integrated child credit. We are making sure that it is easier for people to obtain the access to the monetary help to which they are entitled. We are getting rid of the high marginal deduction rates, and it is worth remembering that, before the working families tax credit was introduced, many people faced more than 100 per cent. deduction. That has gone as a result of the working families tax credit.
	Critically, in respect of the measures that we are introducing today and the child credit, we are making work pay for hundreds of thousands of people for whom it did not pay in the past. We are also making sure that we help families in a way that never ever happened under the Conservative party.
	Critically, in relation to the pension credit, we are making sure that 5 million pensioners will get more money to reward their thrift. When one strips away everything that the hon. Gentleman said, the key difference between us and the Conservative party is that we want to make sure that we give all pensioners an increase in their income, that we do far more to combat pensioner poverty and, crucially, that we reward the 5 million or so pensioners in this country who have got nothing for their effort and thrift.
	Under the Labour Government and under the pension credit, those pensioners will for the first time get a reward. I am willing to bet that that is another position that the hon. Gentleman has got himself into where it will not be too long before his Back Benchers come to him to say, "I think perhaps you ought to rethink your position because, once again, you've got it very, very wrong."

Steve Webb: As another semi-academic, I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in making the statement.
	On integrated child credit, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position of a two-earner couple, both on £20,000 a year who at present get a full child credit, who, when their incomes are added together, might get next to nothing? Those people do not know what their incomes will be the year after next. Will the Secretary of State tell them?
	On pension credit, what computers underlie that complicated system? Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department's spending on computers to run pensioner benefits has risen sevenfold, from £57 million to £432 million? Given that he will not tell us in written parliamentary answers why that has happened, will he tell us on the Floor of the House? Has it anything to do with the pension credit, perhaps?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the pension credit is far more complicated to claim than the basic state pension? Is it not inevitable that a complicated benefit is less likely to be taken up than a straightforward benefit? Given that half a million people already fail to claim the safety net benefit—the poverty line benefit—will he confirm that he expects the take-up rate for the pension credit to be higher than it is for the minimum income guarantee? Is he confident that the proportion of those who claim their entitlement to the benefit will be higher—yes or no?
	Finally, given that the pension credit is so straightforward, perhaps the Secretary of State can tell me one thing: how much pension credit will a single pensioner on a basic pension with an occupational pension of £40 be entitled to receive?

Alistair Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's last question, I can help by referring him to the excellent publication "The Pension Credit", which I presume he received with my draft statement. It has an extremely helpful table in the back which shows exactly how much someone gets for every pound of saving. I strongly commend it to him.

Steve Webb: How much?

Alistair Darling: Being an academic, the hon. Gentleman should not be too hard on himself. He is after all, as we are constantly reminded in the Order Paper every day, a professor. If he cares to look at some of the evidence, he will see exactly how much someone can get from the pension credit.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about computers. I will deal with that, although I cannot for the life of me understand what it has to do with the policy on pension credit. As I have told the House before, the Department for Work and Pensions computer systems are for the most part 20 to 30 years old. They are antiquated and in sore need of investment. We got that investment last year in the current spending review, which is why the figures in our departmental estimate for replacing the computers have increased. In our first term in office, just after the Conservatives had been in power, the money was not allocated to us. From this year, we have the money. We must replace the information technology systems. If we do not, they will be obsolete in about three or four years time. I understand why the hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal and a professor, would raise such a point, but it does not have much to do with the pension credit.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the complexity of the system. He will know, because he does know something about this, that the calculations behind the basic state pension are complex because of the contributions and the rest. As I said, it is the foundation of pension provision and it is important. The concept of pension credit is also straightforward. It does two things. It provides a floor beneath which pensioner incomes should not fall. If someone has a pension of less than £100, from 2003, we will top it up to £100. On top of that, we will reward their second pension or their savings, as the case may be.
	I gave the example to the Conservatives and I will give it to the Liberals because it looks as if they will be knocking on doors with the same message—that they, too, will take away the pension credit. If they knock on the door—perhaps in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—of someone who is 65 with an occupational pension of £100 a month, that individual will receive £60 a month on top under the pension credit. The Conservatives and the Liberals will no doubt be fighting on the doorstep to persuade that person to vote for them on the grounds that they will remove £60 a month. There will, of course, be three of us on the doorstep, because I mean to be there to listen to the argument.

George Mudie: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the many measures that he outlined, in particular the transitional employment scheme and its good tie-up with the national minimum wage. That will enable us in Leeds—I am delighted that he has included Leeds in the pilot areas—to put in work the 10,000 people in the inner-city, many of whom are from the ethnic communities, including Bangladeshis, Afro-Caribbeans and Pakistanis, and the thousands of one-parent families, all of whom have not had the opportunity to share in the nation's prosperity. My right hon. Friend deserves to be congratulated on the scheme. It seems bad after saying that, but I must draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a slight error: he has put Leeds in the second tranche of pilot areas. As we are very anxious to put those people into work, I wonder whether there is any flexibility to enable us to start earlier.

Alistair Darling: On the latter point, I did say that I would be writing to all the hon. Members who represent the areas concerned, and that will include my hon. Friend.
	The first six areas are those in which we are reasonably confident that we can get the scheme up and running quickly. For the reasons that I stated, I want to set up the pilots as quickly as possible. As my hon. Friend will know, Leeds is an interesting case that shows why we need to take action. Its employment rate is about 80 per cent., one of the highest in the country, yet there are parts of Leeds—my hon. Friend highlighted those with an ethnic minority population—where the employment rate is only just over 50 per cent. If we genuinely want to provide opportunities and jobs for everyone, we need to introduce measures such as this to provide people who are not yet in work with far more intensive help than ever before.
	Local leadership, including employers and Members of Parliament, is absolutely critical for this policy, as it was for the new deal, particularly in the early days. I believe that it will go a long way towards solving a problem that many people thought was intractable. I do not think that it is intractable, and it is worth putting in the extra effort to make sure that we get people into work. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State knocked on the door of Help the Aged yesterday, and Help the Aged said of the pensioner credit that it is complex and arbitrary, and will draw half of the older population into means testing. What is his response to that?

Alistair Darling: Naturally, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman or the analysis to which he refers. The objective of our pension reform is to make sure that we help all pensioners, just as we help all children, but we give more to those who most need that help.
	As a Conservative, the hon. Gentleman may care to remember his party's legacy to us. By 1997, the gap between the better-off pensioners and the poorest pensioners was as wide as it had been nearly 40 years earlier. We believed that to deal with that problem we had to give more money to those poorer pensioners, which was why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, and the guarantee element will continue. We believed also that for those millions of people who had done everything that successive Governments told them to do—Conservative and Labour Governments told people to save for their retirement—it was important to introduce a system that supported rather than penalised thrift.
	The hon. Gentleman must be aware that if he had his way, and there was no pension credit, we would return to a system in which somebody who saved money would lose out. That cannot be right, which is why we are introducing what I regard as one of the most radical changes to the social security system for 50 years and moving to the credit system, which rewards people for their thrift. I should be very surprised if, once it has been introduced, another party were to come along and offer to remove money from over half of the pensioner population—it would certainly be a courageous step.

Chris Pond: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), may I point out a further error by the Secretary of State? Gravesham is not included in even the second tranche of the pilot schemes for the transitional employment programme, although I have to admit that we have had considerable success in creating employment.
	I very much welcome the fact that the scheme will include a basic minimum wage and the employment rights and in-work benefits that my right hon. Friend mentioned, so that people will not only be helped into work but be given an opportunity to move on to the next stage. Will he give a commitment that those in the scheme will also have the support of personal advisers to make sure that they can move into long-term employment and build an even better standard of living for themselves and their families in the years ahead?

Alistair Darling: I believe that unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency has come down by over 44 per cent. since 1997, helped to a considerable extent by the various measures that we have introduced to get people into work, of which the new deal is the centrepiece. The new measure is in addition to all that, and will now be a major part of the work implemented by Jobcentre Plus. People will have their own personal adviser who sticks with them—that is central to the Jobcentre Plus approach. As my hon. Friend knows only too well from his previous occupation as well as his experience as a Member of Parliament, people who have been out of work for a long time very often need far more help and intensive engagement than those who have just come out of mainstream employment. The new measure will incorporate that feature, because it is essential to get people into work.

Lady Hermon: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's statement, but may I draw to his attention what appears to be a slight oversight in relation to Northern Ireland? The 20 areas pinpointed for the new deal pilot schemes include areas in Scotland, Wales and England, but not a single one has been selected in Northern Ireland. I ask him to add at least one more area—if not two—that is in Northern Ireland.

Alistair Darling: It was not entirely an oversight, since these matters are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The hon. Lady did not mention pension credit, but I know that the Minister concerned is keen that measures we introduce are also introduced in Northern Ireland, as has been the case for a long time. As she will know, there are other measures operating in Northern Ireland that will help. I am quite sure that we will do everything we can to work with those in Northern Ireland, share experience and so on, because long-term unemployment is a problem no matter where it occurs.

Ernie Ross: I also welcome everything that my right hon. Friend has said, particularly about transitional employment. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), I want not flexibility but acceleration, so that my area is moved out of the last tranche and closer to the top.
	My right hon. Friend is correct that, under the new deal, we have learned from the mistakes of the Conservative party and dealt with the holes as they have appeared. Today's proposal fills the last hole. With the best will in the world—with the intermediate labour market and new deal advisers working as closely as they can—there will always be one or two individuals who find it almost impossible to get a job. Someone must take responsibility for employing them in the short term in order that longer-term employment can be provided by the private sector. If the Government must take such responsibility, I fully support them in doing so. I welcome the scheme, but I want just a little acceleration for Dundee and Tayside.

Alistair Darling: Everybody wants to be first. I very much hope that, if the pilot projects prove to be successful, we can do more. My hon. Friend is right in saying that some people have substantial difficulties in entering the labour market. The advantage of what we are proposing is that people on the programme will gain experience of a full-time job, which in itself brings invaluable experience and discipline. As I have said, they will get the minimum wage and be entitled to all the rights and benefits that go with full-time employment. Long-term unemployed people, some of whom have substantial difficulties, have often missed the experience of going to work. Most of us here take such experience for granted, but many have just not had that opportunity.
	If my hon. Friend has time to read the paper that the Chancellor and I are publishing today, he will see clear evidence of what happens when such measures are not taken. As he knows only too well from representing Dundee, there is now a generation of people—mostly over 50 and some in their 60s—who suffered grievously because they were abandoned. I am determined that that should not happen again.

Christopher Chope: Why is the Secretary of State ignoring the plight of 1 million pensioner households that are in council tax poverty, in the sense that they are spending more than 10 per cent. of their income on council tax each year? Do not his statement and that made by the Chancellor yesterday show that, as a result of Government policy, council tax next year will rise by 7 per cent—four times the rate of inflation, as set out in table B11 of the pre-Budget report—and that even more than 1 million pensioner households will find themselves in council tax poverty? Is not that totally unacceptable?

Alistair Darling: I must say that I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was a champion of people on low incomes. That escaped my attention during all the years during which he was a Minister and I sat on the Opposition Benches. I do not recall him expressing any such concern.
	The Government have done a number of things to help people living in council houses and elsewhere—principally getting people into work and ensuring through the working families tax credit that work pays, and by introducing measures to help older people. A whole range of measures have boosted the income of people on low pay. The hon. Gentleman did not of course mention that he is against each and every one of them.

Andrew Dismore: When going around my constituency explaining pension credit to my constituents, I have met pensioners who are somewhat suspicious of the programme—not for the reasons given by the Conservatives, but because they thought it was too good to be true that, at long last, a Government were recognising their long-standing complaint that they had been saving all their lives but had nothing to show for it. On behalf of the thousands of pensioners in my constituency, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. What plans does he have to make sure that all those who are entitled to it take up that important benefit?

Alistair Darling: On my hon. Friend's first point, I am sure that once pension credit starts to be paid, from October 2003, more and more pensioners will come to realise its benefit. If I were my hon. Friend, I would not worry too much about what the Conservatives say. Remember, theirs is the party that said that pensioners would not like the winter fuel payment—so certain were they of that that they intended to abolish the winter fuel payment. They have changed their mind, as they have on the minimum wage and other measures. That suits me fine: if the Tories want to take money away from people, Labour Members will be absolutely delighted to test that policy at the next opportunity.
	My hon. Friend raises an important point about entitlement. When people retire, we have to write to them to say what their basic state pension is. Our objective is to make sure that at the same time we calculate their guarantee element and the credit. We intend to fix the award to pensioners over the age of 65 for five years so that we do not have to trouble them unless some major change in circumstances occurs. All that plus the IT to which the professor referred will ensure that in future we will have a far easier and a far better system for getting pensioners the money to which they are entitled.

Hywel Williams: We in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party are concerned about the operation of the means test and its differential effect in areas such as ours, where incomes are low and there are many pensioners. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, not the number of people who are claiming minimum income guarantee but the percentage of people who are not claiming it? Does he foresee that percentage falling as his measures are applied?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect. The effect of pension credit is differential; basically, it gives more money to poorer people as well as rewarding those who have modest savings. I regard that as a good thing. Unfortunately, Scotland and Wales have more than their fair share of poor pensioners. That is why the minimum income guarantee proved so successful and popular in both countries and why I believe the pension credit will prove successful in both countries. When the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to reflect on his party's position—no doubt, the Scottish nationalists will do the same—I think that he will see that the pension credit will be welcomed in both countries. If those parties want to take a different view and to oppose the measure, I shall be extremely happy.

Gillian Merron: I welcome the announcement of more money going into the pockets of all pensioners, especially the poorest, as well as the simplification of the minimum income guarantee claim form—a change that was warmly welcomed by Age Concern in Lincoln. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that his Department increases its efforts to find new ways in which to promote the take-up of minimum income guarantee, so that we can be sure that every pensioner who is entitled benefits both from the benefit and from the recent increases that he has announced?

Alistair Darling: I certainly intend to do that. I want two things to be developed in the coming years as new and better IT is implemented. We are starting to send annual pension forecasts to the working population, but we have a problem in that no one has to tell my Department when they move, so we do not always keep in touch with them. Once more regular contact is established, it will be much easier to get in touch with people as they approach retirement and tell them what their basic state pension is likely to be, as well as asking them about second pensions and so on.
	In the coming years, we will get better, but in the immediate future we will, as my hon. Friend rightly urges us to do, continue to step up efforts to ensure that people get the money to which they are entitled. It has been our experience that as we increase the amount of money available, interest tends to increase. I am pretty confident that, as the years pass, more and more people will receive their entitlement. In future, people will wonder why it took so long for any Government to start to work to eradicate pensioner poverty and, critically, to reward those 5 million people with modest means who should have been helped long ago.

Gerry Steinberg: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. The greatest grievance about which I heard in my constituency was from pensioners complaining that they were being penalised for saving when they were younger. The majority of pensioners to whom I have spoken are delighted with Government policies. They tell me that they are much better off than they have ever been.
	I still have a big worry. Will my right hon. Friend assure me—I ask him to explain more fully—that his latest proposals will not mean that some pensioners will lose out in terms of council tax relief and housing benefit? When pensioners have been given increases in pensions, they often lose out in that way. They find that they are worse off at the end of the day. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that will not happen this time?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I can do no better than refer him to page 6 of the pension credit document, which he can send to his constituents. The passage clearly reads:
	"Nobody will lose Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit as a result of the Pension Credit."
	I strongly commend the paper. It is a handy size for putting into an envelope, if my hon. Friend would care to send it to his constituents.

Chris Mullin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the fact that Sunderland is to be included in the pilots for the new programme that is aimed at the hard-core unemployed. The working families tax credit and the new deal have been of great benefit in Sunderland, where we have some of the most intractable unemployment problems.
	May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the best way of dealing with the vast benefit culture that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government is to widen the gap between the world of work and the world of benefit, as we have been doing? Will he confirm that it is his intention to continue widening that gap?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right to say that it was necessary in the reforms that we put in place to ensure that it really did pay to work, and that people could see the difference. That is what the working families tax credit has done.
	We shall keep these matters under review. Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is no longer sitting next to me, I do not think that I can give an undertaking on his behalf to widen or improve the working families tax credit just like that. However, my hon. Friend can take it from me that it is the Government's strategy progressively to ensure that it makes a real difference to people if they are in work.
	In the programme that I have outlined, there will be a pilot in my hon. Friend's area. A single person who goes into work will be £40 better off a week than if they had stayed on the jobseeker's allowance. That is an example of how much better off people will be, but we certainly want to continue to do more.

Anthony D Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and certainly for the inclusion of Great Yarmouth in the new deal for the long-term unemployed. He will be aware that unemployment has fallen by 44 to 45 per cent. since 1997. However, we still have 5.5 per cent. unemployment. The new deal for the long-term unemployed will certainly be welcome.
	Will there be any restrictions relating to the age of those who can come on to the scheme? Will there be restrictions on the numbers of people who are eligible for it? There are more than 900 long-term unemployed people in my constituency.

Alistair Darling: These are pilot programmes. They are aimed at people who have been through the new deal and are still out of work post six months. However, many people go into work immediately after being on the new deal. To start with, and as part of the pilot programme, we want to ensure that as many people as possible can get on to the programme and benefit from it. We shall evaluate the position and see how well they do with a view to extending the programme.
	I am aware that in my hon. Friend's constituency—I have visited it on a couple of occasions—he has some intractable problems. Great Yarmouth has gone through some quite substantial structural changes. I believe that the experience that we build up from the pilots will show us new approaches which work, and we want gradually to roll them out. It is critical that we ensure that we can do more, and not only in this area. It should be remembered that there is also a new deal for disabled people, a new deal and other measures for lone parents and a new deal for the over-50s. They are all designed to ensure that they help people. I hope that a combination of measures will result in people getting into work.

Paul Flynn: The Secretary of State will know of the great campaigning appeal to restore the earnings link in pensions. Had we done so from 1998 until now, the single pension in 2002–03 would be £78.25. We are close to that level, and could raise it by spending £1 billion from the national insurance scheme. If we did that, there would still be an unneeded surplus, in addition to contingency funds, of £11 billion in the national insurance scheme. I urge my right hon. Friend to take such action so that we can go back to the public with an offer. We can face the pensioners now with great pride, but if we restored the link we could offer them a great triple crown of achievements—winter fuel payments, additional payments now for those who are losing out and the restoration of the link.

Alistair Darling: It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I cannot agree with him. Anticipating that he might be in the Chamber and that he might catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I did some research. It is a fact that 98 per cent. of pensioner families are better off as a result of measures that we have introduced since 1997 than they would have been with an earnings-linked basic pension.
	The critical difference between us is that I believe we ought to pay more to the people who need it most. I have never entirely understood the argument that we should pay exactly the same to, say, Lady Thatcher and the poorest pensioner. I do not think that that approach is fair—[Interruption.] Conservative Members think that it is; we have to part company on that.
	The measures that we have introduced mean that we are giving the poorest pensioners an average of £15 a week more than they would have got without the minimum income guarantee. As for the pension credit, it is our policy to encourage people to save for a second credit. The pension credit means that it pays to save; that is not the case at present. Our approach is fairer and much better, which is why, my hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn, we do not intend to change it. It is the right approach and, come the next election, people will see that it is.

Civil Nuclear Liabilities

Patricia Hewitt: I wish to make a statement about the future management of public sector civil nuclear liabilities. I would also like to inform the House of changes in BNFL's financial position and the outcome of work on the company's future strategy. I am sure that the House will forgive me for what will necessarily be a detailed statement on an important issue.
	In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, the Government and the nuclear industry focused on the development and application of nuclear technology for civil and weapons purposes. Sellafield, Dounreay and most other major nuclear sites in the United Kingdom date from that period. Much was achieved and the nuclear industry now makes a significant contribution to the British economy. However, the early years of the industry created substantial liabilities in the form of wastes that needed to be treated and plants that needed to be decommissioned.
	The industry operates within a rigorous, robust and transparent regulatory framework that insists on the highest safety, health, environmental and security standards. The proposals that I will outline this afternoon show our commitment to deliver a clear and focused long-term strategy to address the liabilities and set the course for the next hundred years. They make it clear that the Government's priority is to ensure that the legacy is managed safely, securely and cost-effectively in a way that ensures the protection of the environment.
	Responsibility for the management of the legacy currently rests with two public sector bodies: BNFL and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. In undiscounted terms, BNFL's 2001 accounts estimated the total liabilities for which it was responsible at £35 billion, £28 billion of which was linked to those historic liabilities. In addition, the UKAEA, for its part, has management responsibility for more than £7 billion of liabilities. I should stress that those liabilities do not represent a financial obligation owed to creditors.
	Instead, these nuclear liabilities are redundant radioactively contaminated facilities, equipment and materials which need to be dismantled and disposed of under demanding safety and environmental regulatory conditions. In the earlier years of the nuclear programme, the standards of environmental care and regard for long-term safety were not as stringent as those that we apply today. Only limited and often superficial records of what the facilities contained were kept. Indeed, the clean-up challenges involved were not recognised as such until well into the 1980s.
	As a result, those dealing with the legacy today have to wrestle not only with significant technical challenges but with the basic problem of determining what exactly they are dealing with. I pay tribute—and I am sure that the whole House would wish to pay tribute—to those working in the nuclear industry for their efforts on our behalf. The work required to deal with the legacy extends decades into the future, and the costs involved are inherently uncertain. Over the next 10 to 15 years, the work is expected to cost approximately £1 billion a year, although the level of expenditure will decrease over time.
	The work, which is incredibly important to all of us, involves huge technical and managerial challenges, but offers exciting opportunities for engineers, managers and scientists. Nuclear decommissioning and clean-up is an environmental programme that needs the same focus, intensity and technological innovation as the original nuclear development programme. We must face up to our responsibilities for that programme and not leave them to future generations.
	Our priority is that the nuclear legacy is dealt with safely, securely, cost-effectively and in a way that ensures protection of the environment. We need to build on the best efforts of BNFL and the UKAEA and the real progress that they have made in recent years. We now need a revised structure that strengthens the emphasis on converting legacy facilities, and wastes, into forms that will keep them safe for decades to come, pending their eventual disposal. We need a structure that can provide the strategic direction and influence across the UK required to sustain a clean-up programme that will extend into the next century.
	Eighteen months ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), then the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, announced that, as part of the wider quinquennial review of the UKAEA, Government would reconsider their ability under current arrangements to ensure
	"accountability and efficiency in the control (and safe discharge) of nuclear liabilities."
	The reports on that review are being published today and I have arranged for copies of them to be placed in the Libraries of the House. That review and work on BNFL's future strategy both underlined the need for a sharper focus on liabilities management. We have therefore decided to make two fundamental changes to the present arrangements for managing public sector civil nuclear liabilities.
	First, we are clear that it is only by managing the liabilities as a whole that we can achieve the necessary focus and strong strategic control and direction. I therefore propose to set up a Liabilities Management Authority responsible for Government's interest in the discharge of public sector civil nuclear liabilities, both BNFL's and the UKAEA's.
	I see the Liabilities Management Authority as providing the driving force and incentives to get on with the job of systematically and progressively reducing the hazard posed by legacy facilities and wastes. It will have a specific remit to develop an overall UK strategy for decommissioning and clean-up.
	The LMA will work in partnership with site licensees—at the outset, the UKAEA and BNFL—as well as the safety, security and environmental regulators, to achieve the most effective and safe means of discharging the liabilities. It will look to deepen the level and breadth of expertise in nuclear clean-up in the UK and to foster competition as a means of achieving that. Consistent with the need to ensure the highest safety, security and environmental standards, it will look to optimise the use of those skills by developing the opportunities for liabilities management, including the management of licensed nuclear sites.
	The LMA will look to develop a strong supply chain, and a skills base capable of sustaining the clean-up programme over the long time scale that is required. In doing so, it will build on the existing industry work force whose scientific, professional and engineering skills are widely and rightly recognised. It will operate in an open and transparent fashion.
	Secondly, to enable the LMA to exercise its role across the whole public sector civil nuclear liabilities portfolio, the Government now propose to take on responsibility for most of BNFL's nuclear liabilities and the associated assets. The most significant of those will be the Sellafield and Magnox sites. Previous Administrations have accepted responsibility for all of the UKAEA's liabilities and financial responsibility for some 50 per cent. of BNFL's liabilities. Most of BNFL's liabilities represent the legacy of nuclear development programmes carried out before its establishment in 1971 and the operation of the Magnox stations in the public sector throughout the period. BNFL has currently earmarked funds for the majority of its liabilities. Our current intention is that those assets will be transferred to the Government when we take on responsibility for the liabilities. Responsibility for the assets and liabilities associated with BNFL's commercial fuel, reactor services and international clean-up businesses will remain with the company.
	Expenditure on public sector civil nuclear liabilities already forms part of the Government's expenditure plans and covers non-discretionary public sector activities that Government will have to continue to finance one way or another. In other words, today's announcement will have no impact on the Chancellor's two fiscal rules. The aggregate effect on the overall public sector balance sheet will be neutral. Indeed, the new structure offers the prospect of a lower burden on the taxpayer.
	The establishment of the LMA and the transfer of assets and liabilities from BNFL and the UKAEA will require primary legislation. We will introduce a Bill at the earliest opportunity. A White Paper to be published next spring will set out in more detail our overall approach to discharging the UK's public sector civil nuclear liabilities. It will spell out the role of the LMA and how it is expected to operate in practice, and address a range of associated issues. It will complement the consultation process on long-term waste management arrangements that is currently under way and draw on the responses to it.
	Before the LMA is established, my Department will take steps to strengthen its existing capability for overseeing work on the nuclear legacy. That will include acquiring a more detailed knowledge of the legacy liabilities and their management, and of the Sellafield site in particular, and incentivising and monitoring performance against key performance indicators.
	I should like to turn now to the future strategy for BNFL. Hon. Members will recall that the Government have been looking at the prospects of introducing a public-private partnership into BNFL's business. On 29 March last year, my right hon. Friend who was then the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe informed the House that problems with BNFL's business had resulted in a reassessment of the prospects of PPP. She explained that the earliest possible date for the introduction of any PPP into BNFL could not be before the latter part of 2002.
	Also at that time, BNFL's new chairman, Hugh Collum, and its new chief executive, Norman Askew, set out to turn the company's performance around and to carry out a fundamental review of its strategy. They have already done a great deal to refocus the company. It has met all the recommendations of two out of the three Health and Safety Executive reports and made solid progress in implementing those of the third. It has reshaped its management structure to provide greater accountability, including the appointment of an overall site director for Sellafield and its management as a single unified site. It has begun to win back customer confidence and is committed to delivering the highest standards of safety and environmental performance.
	The board has brought a greater emphasis to liabilities management and has endorsed the need for a sharper focus on nuclear clean-up. Under its direction, the company has, over the past 18 months, been reviewing its approach to tackling the most hazardous wastes at its sites. It agreed an approach to handling highly active waste with the HSE in February this year. It has also developed a new strategy for processing its intermediate-level wastes, which the board endorsed today. Under the new strategy, which the company has discussed in outline with all its regulators, it is proposed that the wastes will be removed from existing, ageing stores as soon as is reasonably practicable and will be treated and packaged to enable them to be stored safely for decades.
	That new approach means that BNFL now estimates that it needs an additional £1.9 billion to provide for its share of the liabilities. On 31 March 2001, the company's accounts were already dominated by its provision for nuclear liabilities. As a result of the increase in provisions for liabilities, the current estimated value of the company's total liabilities now exceeds the value of its total assets by some £1.7 billion. The proposals that I have made for restructuring the industry more broadly, including removal of most of BNFL's liabilities and associated assets from the balance sheet, will address that situation.
	I have been kept closely informed about the company's position, which has been monitored over the past year. BNFL's chairman informed me today that the company's board has concluded that its long-term liabilities are now estimated to exceed its assets, and also that the company will continue its operations because of its strong cash position. He stressed that the position as outlined in the company's last annual accounts, in July this year, still holds good today. The accounts stated that
	"the Group had more than adequate resources to continue in operational existence and to meet all liabilities as they fall due for the foreseeable future and for a period of at least 10 years."
	The company has, however, called a shareholders' meeting, as it is required to do under section 142 of the Companies Act 1985. I have also been assured by the chief inspector of nuclear installations that BNFL's financial position will not in itself have any impact on the safety of BNFL's operations. He confirmed that the nuclear installations inspectorate would continue closely to monitor BNFL's activities to ensure that it continued to maintain and, as appropriate, improve its safety performance.
	The company has been working on its future business strategy, the primary focus of which must be and will remain the management and discharge of liabilities at Sellafield. Without detracting from this, BNFL's strategy is to continue as a broad-based provider of nuclear products and services, exploiting for that purpose the strong nuclear scientific, technical and engineering knowledge base and resources that are the key assets of the business. Its strategy was developed to support its two groups of customers: Governments and nuclear electricity-generating companies. The company continues to carry out its strategy through its four business groups: fuel manufacture and reactor services; spent fuel and engineering; Magnox generation; and nuclear decommissioning and clean-up.
	The company's strategy work reinforced the Government's own conclusion that a sharper focus on nuclear clean-up was needed. This is particularly the case at Sellafield, which will account for two thirds of the LMA's overall liability. Given the high level of safety, environmental and operational interdependencies, it is important that Sellafield continues to be managed as a single, unified site. The efforts of its dedicated, talented and skilled work force are key to ensuring that the site is managed effectively.
	For now, BNFL remains responsible for the management of its liabilities and for the current decommissioning and clean-up programmes, including those at Sellafield. The proposals that I am outlining today will not affect the company's existing contractual commitments to its customers in any way. I know that the company is determined to continue to improve its performance and cost-effectiveness, including through greater use of private sector contractors when appropriate. The LMA will work towards placing those site management responsibilities on an incentivised basis, with appropriate performance targets.
	Similar arrangements will be put in place for the management of the Magnox stations, Capenhurst, Drigg and the nuclear licensed sites for which the UKAEA is responsible. Performance will be kept under review by the LMA, in consultation with the regulators. Changes will be made where options for improving management arrangements are identified, which enhance safety and operational efficiency and secure better long-term value for money for the taxpayer.
	Let me emphasise again that the Government's priority is the safe, secure and cost-effective discharge of liabilities in a manner that ensures protection of the environment. To achieve this we need to ensure that we are able to draw on the broadest pool of expertise possible, using the best of what the public and private sectors have to offer, and rewarding those who deliver. I know that the management teams at BNFL and the UKAEA share those priorities, and are determined to build on what has been achieved to date.
	For BNFL as a business, it is now important that its management and staff have the opportunity to deliver on the good work already begun to improve the company's performance. Public-private partnership remains a target for the company. The Government, for their part, recognise that a PPP could, in the right circumstances, be right for BNFL's businesses and improve the management of liabilities at Sellafield. However, the company and the Government recognise that much has to be done if this is to be possible. In 2004-05, we will reconsider the scope for a PPP. In doing so, we will consider the overall performance of BNFL's businesses, advice from the LMA—which by then will have gained real experience in the best means of discharging liabilities—and the views of the industry regulators.
	Management and work force have made considerable progress in their efforts to turn the company around—progress that I and, I hope, the whole House acknowledge today. They have responded positively to the challenges they faced over the past 18 months, but there is still more to do. We want a successful BNFL that performs better. The approach that I have outlined gives BNFL and its people the chance to demonstrate success across all its four businesses—in particular, in managing nuclear liabilities—and to seize the opportunity for PPP.
	For the UKAEA, that approach provides a clear opportunity to build on its positive efforts to make progress in liabilities management. As with BNFL, it gives the UKAEA the chance to demonstrate that it can deliver the results and the performance that the LMA and the Government want to achieve. It will be incentivised to do so and its performance will be kept under review.
	The proposals set out in the statement reflect discussions with BNFL, the UKAEA, the HSE, the environment agencies and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. Much more work is needed to take the proposals forward, and further discussions are needed with those and other interested parties, including the European Commission.
	The approach that I have outlined today shows that we are gripping the challenges posed by nuclear liabilities management. We have identified a way forward that will deliver the necessary strategic approach and overall control. It is a challenge for the industry, as well as for the Government, but I know that it is welcomed by the chairmen and chief executives of BNFL and the UKAEA.
	The objective for us all is to ensure that this essential work continues to be carried out in a safe, secure and cost-effective manner that ensures protection of the environment.

John Whittingdale: I thank the Secretary of State for letting me have an advance copy of her statement. I also declare an interest in that my constituency contains Bradwell power station, the oldest commercial nuclear station, which is scheduled to commence decommissioning in just four months.
	In principle, we broadly welcome the Government's decision to transfer the civil nuclear liabilities of BNFL and the UKAEA to the new LMA. As the Secretary of State said, the nuclear industry is unique in that the liabilities created by building and operating nuclear power stations stretch into the future for up to 100 years. As a result, any calculation of their size on a discounted basis is so dependent on assumptions that any figure is largely notional.
	The restructuring announced by the Secretary of State is a book-keeping exercise to the extent that it transfers liabilities from one state-owned entity to another. I would be grateful if she made it absolutely clear that there is no additional cost to the taxpayer, either now or in the future, as a result of that change.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the principle set out under the Conservative Government that liabilities should remain with assets has not been breached? Will the nuclear liabilities remain with the Department of Trade and Industry budget, and how will they be treated by the Treasury under resource accounting procedures?
	Will the Secretary of State give more details of the amount accumulated by BNFL to meet the future cost of liabilities that will also be transferred to the LMA? Will she confirm that it is about £8 billion and that, under current estimates, it should still be sufficient to meet about 80 or 90 per cent. of the cost of the future discharge of those liabilities?
	On BNFL, will the Secretary of State confirm that the technical insolvency to which she referred results from historic liabilities that will go to the LMA and that the company should be able to operate profitably on a purely commercial basis? Will she make it clear that this is not another Railtrack and that the restructuring does not represent a handout to the company from the taxpayer?
	Will the Secretary of State say what discussions have taken place with the European Commission about whether clearance is required for the changes under the rules governing state aid? Will she confirm that, having removed the liabilities from the company, there is no reason for it to remain in public ownership?
	What is the justification for a public-private partnership? Does the Secretary of State accept that there is no longer any long-term strategic reason for the company not being 100 per cent. private sector owned? What is the long-term future for the UKAEA and might it, in due course, be transferred to the private sector?
	Will the Secretary of State say why it was decided that the Sellafield mixed oxide plant and the thermal oxide reprocessing plant should also be transferred to the LMA? Will she state for the record that that is not related to the viability of those businesses, following the MOX data falsification problems in 1999?
	What implications has the restructuring for BNFL's existing employees, many of whom are my constituents? If BNFL is to continue managing both the Sellafield site and the Magnox stations, will the employees remain employed by the company with no effect on either their conditions or their job prospects?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the LMA will put the operation, management and eventual decommissioning of the Magnox stations and Sellafield out to competitive tender? Can she say whether that will apply to Bradwell power station in my constituency, which will stop generating in March?
	Will the LMA operate on an independent basis? Does the Secretary of State envisage that it could become responsible for the whole nuclear waste inventory if British Energy chose to contract with it? Can she say what arrangements will be made to ensure proper financial accountability? Will the LMA also retain responsibility for proper third-party liability insurance against the possibility of a nuclear accident at one of the plants that it owns?
	The Secretary of State will know that significant liabilities remain with British Energy, relating to the power stations operated by that company. Can she say what is the Government's attitude to British Energy's request that responsibility for the pre-1996 spent fuel and waste liabilities, relating to electricity generated when its nuclear plants were in Government ownership, should also be removed?
	I understand that the energy review being conducted by the performance and innovation unit has not yet been completed, but does the Secretary of State accept that her statement has considerable implications for the whole future of nuclear power generation in this country? Does she accept that one aspect of that is the need to establish a common United Kingdom solution to the problem of waste management? Does she recognise that until it is established, no decision will be made on whether replacement nuclear power stations will be built? Does she accept that the seven-year time scale proposed by the Minister for the Environment for the radioactive waste management review is wholly unacceptable, and is being viewed as a means of blocking any future development of nuclear power, whatever the outcome of the PIU review?

Patricia Hewitt: I shall do my best to respond to the hon. Gentleman's numerous questions.
	I can readily confirm that, as I said in my statement, there is no change in the overall public sector liabilities. The liabilities will indeed be held on the DTI balance sheet. We will look at resource accounting and budgeting in more detail in due course. The assets and the liabilities will be transferred together to the LMA when it is created.
	I can also readily confirm—although I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue—that BNFL is certainly not Railtrack, and that we are not in the process of bailing anyone out. Let me add that, contrary to reports that I understand featured on the BBC this morning, this is not about privatisation. As I said in my statement, a public-private partnership remains a target for BNFL. We recognise the potential benefits of a PPP for BNFL's businesses and for liabilities management at Sellafield, but a great deal must be achieved if that is to be possible—which is why we will reconsider it in 2004–05.
	We do not believe that state aid issues are implicit in the arrangements, but we are discussing that with the European Commission.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Sellafield Magnox plant and THORP, and whether they should be transferred to the LMA. We have considered that carefully. It is clear that it would be immensely damaging to our prime objective—safe and responsible management of the liabilities—for the Sellafield site to be split.
	We are not prepared to compromise safety by splitting the site. Therefore, THORP and the Sellafield MOX plant will transfer to the Liabilities Management Authority.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that employees' skills and expertise, and the efforts that employees are making in the company, are hugely valuable and admirable. No change for the staff at BNFL arises from the proposals, except perhaps the prospect of greater work as the company develops its business. We shall set out in the White Paper to which I referred our proposals on the detailed operation of the LMA. However, when the LMA is placing contracts for work, I should expect that to be on the basis of competitive tendering.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of British Energy. It is in a different position, and the issue of its liabilities was settled before it was put into the private sector some years ago.
	Finally, on the broader issue of the United Kingdom's energy needs and our future strategy, we are undertaking in the PIU study a comprehensive review of the UK's energy objectives and how those are best met. The question of any new nuclear power stations will of course be for the generators. As I understand it, none of them has yet come forward with proposals for new nuclear build. However, the overall strategy will be considered by the Government in the light of the PIU energy review and its report.

Jack Cunningham: I warmly welcome and strongly support my right hon. Friend's important statement, which at long last begins seriously to address issues that have been neglected for too long. Her statement will be widely welcomed in west Cumbria, not only on the Sellafield site by employees of BNFL and of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, but much more widely across the north-west of England—in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and elsewhere—where many of the very large contracts placed by BNFL employ many thousands of engineering workers.
	I welcome the decision to create a Liabilities Management Authority as an important step forward in this policy development, but I have two questions about the move. First, what nature does she envision for the authority? Will it be a public limited company or an executive agency, or will it have some other public body status? It is important that we make that decision very quickly. We certainly do not want a hiatus in the considerable improvement in dealing with those problems of historic wastes at Sellafield and elsewhere.
	Secondly—this is a fairly important question as we know what Chancellors of the Exchequer are like—will the investment fund and the income that it earns be ring-fenced for the sole use of the authority? It is important that we make that clear, too.
	My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to resist suggestions that management authority on the Sellafield site should be divided. We have been down that route once, with the previous board of the company, and as we all know that was disastrous. She must retain a unified management structure there. She must ensure that none of the changes undermines the increasingly successful management and operation of the Sellafield site, where continuing improvement is necessary.

Patricia Hewitt: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals and also for his reference to the workers not only in his constituency but across Cumbria and the north-west. I hope that the assurance of their future will be particularly welcome in the light of the devastating effect that foot and mouth disease has had, in particular, on the economy in Cumbria.
	I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question on the precise status of the Liabilities Management Authority. It will be neither a plc nor an executive agency, but a statutory non-departmental public body that will be accountable to Ministers, and through us to Parliament, for the management of the liabilities.
	The funds currently with BNFL for meeting the cost of the liabilities will transfer with other assets to the LMA, and they will indeed be ring-fenced as my right hon. Friend has requested.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which was complex and comprehensive. She confirmed that the THORP and MOX plants form part of the assets that are to be transferred to the LMA, perhaps in an implicit admission that they are liabilities rather than assets, but there is also an operating nuclear plant on that site. Is it her intention that it should also be taken over by the LMA? Would not that give the LMA a range of functions that would be inappropriate given its strategic direction?
	I note that, in essence, the statement said that any plans to privatise even part of BNFL have been delayed for two years. The Liberal Democrats welcome that delay and hope that it will be extended. Our view is that BNFL has been a huge and expensive nuclear dinosaur. It made big losses last year and it has massive liabilities. Does the Secretary of State agree that she is fattening up the balance sheet of BNFL by taking away those liabilities and defying a central tenet of environmental policy—that the polluter pays for the mess that they create? Does she further agree that her proposals will give a massive subsidy to the nuclear industry at a time when UK energy policy is in the middle of a fundamental review? Will not any subsidy or write-off of debts now undermine that review and also possibly breach EU competition rules?
	Are the liabilities now being transferred intended to be joined by additional liabilities created in the future, either by BNFL, by the UKAEA or by a future nuclear programme? Will we obscure the transparency of waste-generated costs in the future? Will the public have to bear the liabilities incurred by the Sellafield MOX plant in their entirety? In what way will the economics of the MOX plant be translated—perhaps I should say distorted—by taking them out of BNFL and putting them into the LMA? I remind the Secretary of State that the start-up of that plant will instantly generate a huge amount of additional nuclear waste that will need to be dealt with in due course.
	Who does the Secretary of State intend should bear the liabilities for any additional nuclear plants that are built in this country? Will those liabilities be translated straight to the LMA or will they form part of the economic and business cases of those schemes when they come forward for consideration? Our view is that the statement should have been made after the energy review was published. Does the Secretary of State accept that once again the true cost of the nuclear industry is being lost and disguised and that the statement undermines the fundamental energy review for which we are waiting?

Patricia Hewitt: I regret the tone as well as the content of the hon. Gentleman's response to the statement. I shall stress again that BNFL is a publicly owned company. We are transferring what are existing public sector liabilities, which can never be anything other than public sector liabilities, from one part of the public sector to another part of the public sector in order that they can be more transparently, rigorously and effectively managed for all our benefits in the future. Those are historic liabilities, as I took some pains to explain. They arise from the early part of the civil and military nuclear defence industry.
	By explaining to the House what has happened in the company in terms of the change in the valuation of those liabilities, and by proposing to transfer the liabilities and the corresponding assets to a separate Liabilities Management Authority, we will increase the transparency and accountability of the responsibility for those liabilities.
	The operation of the Sellafield MOX plant was approved on its merits. The economic case was thoroughly assessed earlier in the year by independent consultants, who concluded that the plant's operation would have a clear and positive net present value, and that no additional risk would be imposed.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about future policy. That is an important matter, and it will be considered in the energy review.

Martin O'Neill: I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The fact that she has been able to make it today is due in no small measure to the work of the new management and staff over the past two years. It is now possible to assess properly the extent of the liabilities.
	When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am Chairman, tried to make some sense out of the books of the UKAEA and BNFL, we discovered that there had been severe operational problems and more than a suggestion of smoke and mirrors about the conduct of bookkeeping in the past. Neither company will have anywhere to hide now that the liabilities are to be placed under an appropriate authority. However, probably for the first time in their existence, both will now have a clear role and clear financial accountability.
	In some respects, the LMA will be a shell operation, and the work will be performed by the same people who have performed it hitherto. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the LMA will not become another regulator in the industry? At present, as well as the local authority regulators, there are inspectorates covering the environment, health and safety and nuclear installations. All go about their business quite correctly, but it would be unfortunate if a layer of bureaucracy were to be laid on top of the activities of companies that are beginning to make their way in a positive sense. We must guard against that from the outset, so that the people who have done so well see today's announcement as a vote of confidence, and not as a question about their future capability.

Patricia Hewitt: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. We have been very grateful for the work that his Select Committee has done in the investigation of these matters. I also entirely agree with what he said about the enormous work done by the new management and staff to deal with the sorry situation that they inherited.
	I agree, too, that the regulatory apparatus for the industry is complicated, but the need to ensure safety, security and environmental protection means that it has to be so. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the LMA will not be another regulator in addition to those that already exist, and neither will it be another layer of bureaucracy. It will be a customer for the effective management of nuclear liabilities.

Michael Jack: I am sure that the BNFL workers in my constituency will welcome the Secretary of State's kind words about the quality of the work force, and that they will also welcome today's announcement.
	Will the Secretary of State say a little more about who will determine the performance criteria and rules for the LMA? Will she also make it clear that income from the transferred assets will continue to be reinvested in the facilities necessary to carry on the work of disposing of waste nuclear material?
	In addition, will she respond to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about the incompatibility between the time scale of the inquiry by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the disposal of radioactive materials, and the pace at which the right hon. Lady understandably wishes the LMA to work?
	Finally, will the right hon. Lady say a little more about how the additional liabilities worth £1.9 billion identified by BNFL will be covered? Will that be the sole responsibility of BNFL?

Patricia Hewitt: First, there is no conflict between the time scale for the consultation on nuclear waste management initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the energy review, and the work that we are setting in train to establish the Liabilities Management Authority. As I said earlier, there are no immediate proposals from any of the nuclear generators for new nuclear power stations. It therefore makes sense for the Government to consult on the appropriate measures to be taken in future for waste management arising from nuclear electricity generation. As I said in my statement, the responses to that consultation will help to inform the White Paper that we will publish next year on the LMA.
	We will have more to say about the income of the assets that will be transferred and the establishment of performance indicators for the LMA, its accountability to Ministers, and thereby to Parliament, when we publish the White Paper.

Tam Dalyell: May I strongly welcome the fact that the Government are grasping the nettle of civil nuclear liabilities? I also welcome their recognition of the clear difference between the UK's national legacy of nuclear waste arising from the early days of weapons and civil programmes in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s and that from current operations. Is it not now clear that waste policy must reflect the fact that the knowledge to deal with such material already exists? Waste policy must make the distinction between the national legacy and the arisings from current operations. In fact, does not today's statement make it possible to have a proper economic assessment of the value to the economy and, indeed, the environment of the new nuclear stations at Sizewell, Hinkley and Hunterston, in which I, for one, passionately believe?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the need for waste policy to distinguish between the historic liabilities—which we can do nothing to get rid of but must manage as effectively as possible and ensure that the environment is protected—and the current liabilities arising from continuing operations. As I said in my statement, there will be no transfer to the LMA of the liabilities that arise from BNFL's commercial operations. That transparency, along with the continuing work to estimate the real costs of these liabilities, will assist better policy making in future, as my hon. Friend has suggested.

Michael Weir: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I give a guarded welcome to the statement. I say "guarded" because we would like to know more about the role of the LMA. The Secretary of State promised to publish a White Paper in the spring. She was asked earlier whether the LMA would be completely independent, and I do not think that she really answered the question. Can she confirm that it will be completely independent of BNFL and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority?
	The Secretary of State said that it is proposed that current wastes will be removed from existing, ageing stores as soon as reasonably practicable and will be treated and packaged to enable them to be stored safely for decades. She will be aware, as the Minister for Industry and Energy certainly is, of the problems at Dounreay and the uncertainty about what is in the shaft. Is it proposed to remove waste from the sites to other areas or will it be re-stored in new stores on the existing nuclear sites?

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the statement, even if it is guarded. He is right to ask me about the status and independence of the LMA. I apologise for not dealing with that earlier.
	The intention is that the LMA will act on behalf of Government but that it will operate at arm's length from Government. We will exercise strategic control, but the running and development of the LMA will be down to its board and management team, which will be independent of the companies with which it will contract. A framework agreement will define the authority's aims, objectives and responsibilities, and its relationship with Government. We will have more to say about that in the White Paper.
	On the question of Dounreay and other sites, I was describing the future strategic intention of BNFL when it comes to dealing with historic wastes. There are no immediate proposals of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Tony Cunningham: I very much welcome the Government's decision to reconstruct the UK's public sector nuclear liabilities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assets of BNFL lie very much in its work force, thousands of whom live in my Workington constituency? They have a unique technical, scientific and engineering knowledge base. The decision will mean that BNFL will be able to use the tremendous skills of its work force to the absolute maximum.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The real assets of BNFL are, indeed, its people and their extraordinary technical expertise. That expertise is recognised world wide and the management has succeeded on building on it in the period since the earlier, rather unfortunate, incidents took place. The statement and the new arrangements will give the company and its work force the chance to build on their recent successes.

Nick Gibb: Is not the truth that the statement provides a bail out of an insolvent BNFL? It is insolvent because of the transfer of Magnox Electric to BNFL in 1998; insolvent because of BNFL's bad performance in the United States; insolvent because of the Government's appalling handling of the MOX data falsification, which wrecked relations with customers in Japan; and insolvent because of the inordinate delay in the approval of the MOX plant.
	Now that all the strategic decision making about reprocessing and MOX lies at the Department of Trade and Industry, with BNFL as a mere contractor, will the Secretary of State tell the House what the intentions are? Does she want more reprocessing contracts or does she want to concentrate solely on managing the liabilities and minimising the expense to the taxpayer? Will she commit herself to keeping the House informed about the profitability or otherwise of the commercial operations—namely, the THORP and the MOX plant operations—that will be taken over by the LMA, so that any losses generated by those operations are not simply obscured in the overall nuclear liabilities taken on?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy was recently in Japan, where he met not only Ministers but representatives of BNFL's customers. I do not think that they would recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of our current relations with the Japanese Government and with BNFL's customers there.
	On the future operations of BNFL and the LMA, I have already said that the new arrangements will provide much greater transparency of the liabilities and the assets. I shall, of course, continue to keep the House fully informed.

Paul Flynn: Is not the statement an attempt unfairly to rig the energy market in favour of nuclear power to the detriment of other power producers? Although the military legacy is certainly a national legacy, the civil nuclear industry has always been an economic basket case and has never been viable without public handouts. If we are to discharge the nuclear industry from the legitimate legacy of the past, will we charge it for the new legacy that has arisen since 11 September?
	We know that France has installed surface-to-air missiles in its power stations and that jets have been scrambled near Sellafield after an emergency there. An agency in France has claimed that if an 11 September attack took place on a nuclear-powered processing plant such as that at La Hague or Sellafield, it would produce 60 times the amount of caesium that was released at Chernobyl. Who will pay for the additional costs of defending those sites? What would we have to pay to insure against 60 Chenobyls?

Patricia Hewitt: The nuclear industry in the United Kingdom provides about 25 per cent. of the electricity on which all of us—both domestic consumers and business—depend. I think that the industry has served the economic needs of the country very well.
	The historic liabilities that were the subject of my statement are there regardless of the future of nuclear power generation. They have to be managed in the most effective and environmentally responsible manner possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the arrangements that I set out in the statement are a real step forward in that direction.
	My hon. Friend also raises the important issue of the security implications that arise from the atrocity on 11 September. We and the director of civil nuclear security have reviewed security procedures in the light of that attack, although for obvious reasons I do not propose to go into the detail of those arrangements. Each country makes its own judgment of the measures that are necessary to ensure the security of its infrastructure, including nuclear power stations. The RAF certainly maintains a high state of readiness in support of the air defence of the United Kingdom, and that readiness was reviewed in the light of the attack on the United States.

John Thurso: May I welcome one aspect in particular of the quinquennial review? It relates to the UKAEA pensions office located in Thurso in my constituency. I understand that the review praises the office for being particularly efficient and effective. As it has been the subject of two quinquennial reviews, could the Secretary of State give it time out from the next quinquennial review, because it has clearly done such a good job?
	On Dounreay, significant changes will clearly be made as a result of the announcement of the new statutory body, but they should not alter the practical priorities for the UKAEA. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Dounreay site restoration will proceed as planned, in a full and effective manner?

Patricia Hewitt: First, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the excellence of the pensions administration for the UKAEA. The office will continue to operate out of Thurso. Secondly, one reason for the recent change at Dounreay was to ensure that it was possible to focus more effectively on the management of the liabilities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would join me in welcoming that.

David Chaytor: I welcome the statement and congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting to grips with the issue so early in her term of office. My only regret is that the statement was not made 30 years ago. Had that been the case, we might have had a better understanding of the economics of nuclear power generation and avoided some of the worst public policy mistakes of the past 50 years.
	First, is it not the case that the liabilities to which my right hon. Friend referred are not the totality of historic liabilities? The sum of £42 billion—£35 billion for BNFL and £7 billion for the UKAEA—constitutes only a minority of the total sum of liabilities and decommissioning costs in the United Kingdom, which stands at £85 billion. The additional £43 billion is presumably primarily for decommissioning costs and the liabilities of British Energy. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no Government bail out of the liabilities of British Energy or other private nuclear establishments?
	Secondly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has done very well indeed.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I agree that it would have been better had we understood 30 years ago the scale of the problems and the challenges that were building up. Our knowledge of the liabilities and the technical possibilities that are available to manage them change with each generation. The board has delivered the best available current estimate of the liabilities, which we have put before the House today. No doubt the estimates will continue to change, especially in the light of new technical expertise.
	My hon. Friend is right that the liabilities that I propose to transfer to the LMA represent only part of the total liabilities of the industry. I readily confirm, as I said earlier, that there is no proposal whatsoever to transfer the liabilities of British Energy, which were dealt with when the company was privatised, to the public sector.

Stephen Ladyman: May I also express my support for my right hon. Friend's excellent announcement? In response to the few voices raised against it, will she make it clear that the nuclear power industry, alone among energy producers, has to take account of its lifetime costs, including the cost of decommissioning, in working out its figures? We have a legacy liability today because that industry alone contains and manages its environmental waste while other energy producers are allowed simply to throw it into the atmosphere and ignore it.
	On a point of clarification, if the new authority is to contract for services from BNFL, how will the prices for those services be set, given that there is no market at present to set them?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises two extremely important points. I hope that one of the outcomes of the performance and innovation unit energy review will be an analytical base for a better understanding of the real costs of different energy sources, so that future decisions between energy sources can be made on a true comparison of those costs.
	My hon. Friend's second point, on the non-existence of a market in the management of nuclear liabilities, is very important. Part of the remit of the LMA, and of my Department before the LMA is established, will be to try to encourage the development of a growing market in the management of nuclear liabilities so that we get a wider choice of operators and a better sense of what the price would be.

British Remand Prisoners (Greece)

John Randall: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
	the plight of the 12 British tourists who are still being held in custody in Greece.
	You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that they have been accused of espionage although it seems that some of those accused are not certain whether any charges have been laid against them. Yesterday they were remanded in custody for at least a further week. Bail was refused. My constituent, Mr. Peter Norris, is one of those held, but many hon. Members have been expressing strong concerns about their constituents. I am particularly grateful for the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins).
	Mr. Norris has told me, through his daughter Estelle, that the charges are ludicrous. All 12 tourists are bona fide aviation enthusiasts who have followed their hobby in many places around the world without problems for many years. As a fellow resident of Uxbridge, I know that Mr. Norris is a locally known expert on that subject and has written articles in the Uxbridge Gazette for over 20 years.
	At the three air bases that the tourists visited they were officially signed in. They were told not to bring cameras, so they left them in their vehicle. There has been mention of a secret air base. Apparently, this is where a soap opera is filmed, with episodes shown weekly on Greek television. The tourists have even seen episodes showing the air base while they have been in prison. In fact they never even entered the base, but were at an adjacent go-kart track, which had a view over the film-set air base. It is hardly the stuff of John le Carré. These are ordinary people pursuing their hobby.
	This incident is fast becoming a real problem in relations between our two countries, and many people now thinking about holidaying in Greece may well want to reconsider any decision in light of what is going on. This over-reaction is frankly not the behaviour that we expect from a democracy and a fellow European Union state. I know that members of Her Majesty's Government have been talking to their counterparts in Greece, and that the consular department of the British embassy in Athens has been active in trying to look after the welfare of those in prison. However, I ask for this debate now so that we in the House have the opportunity to express our views, and in my case my extreme displeasure, at this unnecessarily harsh and unwarranted treatment of British subjects by one of our European Union partners.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Point of Order

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I thank you for the clarification that you have given the House with regard to the resolution of March 1997. I would very much appreciate your guidance on two points.
	The first is this: you will know that, as a general proposition, the Table Office will not accept questions when an answer to it has been given in the recent past. You will appreciate that a number of right hon. and hon. Members, myself included, have recently tabled questions in respect of which they have not received satisfactory answers, and in their view have not received an answer that corresponds and complies with the guidance that you have given today. Given that, would you consider expressing the view for the guidance of the Table Office that it should be generous in the interpretation and acceptance of questions tabled, with a view to getting further and more satisfactory replies?
	The second point on which I would welcome your guidance is as follows: will you confirm that any practice of burying bad news by Ministers—clipping out bits of information at times most propitious to them—does not comply with the guidance and interpretation that you have given this day on the resolution of March 1997?

Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to add to the statement that I made today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should submit these problems to the Public Administration Committee. That is the best advice that I can give him.

BILL PRESENTED

Tax Credits

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer presented a Bill to make provision for tax credits; to amend the law about child benefit and guardian's allowance; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 59].

Prime Minister (Office, Role and Functions)

Graham Allen: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to define the office, role and functions of the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury; to make arrangements for his appointment; and for connected purposes.
	Thomas Paine argued in "The Rights of Man" that
	"a government without a constitution is a power without a right."
	Power unacknowledged is power unaccountable. Power unbounded is power uncontrolled. The time has come for this Parliament to acknowledge and define the true extent of the power of the United Kingdom prime ministership.
	We will all be stronger for recognising the central truth of British politics: the office of Prime Minister towers over our democracy. This mighty oak casts a long and chilling shadow over all of us who are drawn close to it—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—regardless of which party is in office. We all know that there is no political office like it in the democratic world—the concentration of power, the scope of decision making, the span of patronage, the control of both Executive and legislature, plus the informal abilities to set the agenda and dominate access to the media.
	I and my sponsors—all departmental Select Committee Chairs and of all parties—make no partisan or personal points. The development of the office under all incumbents over the past century has made a myth of the notion of parliamentary sovereignty, a lie of collective Cabinet government and a near terminal hollowing-out of our political parties. Our politics, once a rich and varied diet of interaction and competition, has given way to McPolitics—a dumbed-down, one-dimensional relationship between a prime ministership and an insatiable media, with the rest of us reduced to spectators, bit players and cheer-leaders.
	All of us in this House should be anxious that at some point in future—in different hands; in less wholesome hands—such awesome prime ministerial power could overwhelm and threaten our democratic culture. We cannot rely for ever on prime ministerial benevolence and self-discipline. Stronger institutional bulwarks are needed to keep vigil over our democracy. It is our duty in this House, and one that Downing street can no longer neglect, to think on those issues and propose some practical answers. Before then, a more routine and obvious obligation falls on us as parliamentarians: to define the office that is so central to our politics to give it statutory life and legalise the existing institution of the prime ministership. That is the intent of the Bill.
	So much of the office still lies in a shadow, a mystery, much of it veiled in the royal prerogative, the Crown at No. 10 Downing street—all of it outwith parliamentary consent. A handful of our statutes make passing reference to the office, all on minor matters such as the appointment of bishops and so on. None define it. None consolidate it in one place so that all can see the magnificent spread, the frightening reach, of prime ministerial supremacy. After almost 300 years that oversight should be put right, for without definition there can be no limits, and without limits the office itself will become a threat to representative democracy.
	I recently asked the current Prime Minister to define the prime ministership. He replied:
	"The Prime Minister's roles as head of Her Majesty's Government, Her principal adviser and as Chairman of the Cabinet are not . . . defined in legislation. These roles, including the exercise of powers under the royal prerogative, have evolved over many years, drawing on convention and usage, and it is not possible precisely to define them."—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 819W.]
	Parliament can and should help the Prime Minister. If it walks like a prime ministership and if it talks like a prime ministership, let us ensure, on the hard countenance of a parliamentary Bill, that it is a prime ministership. The House has many precedents on which to draw: every other liberal democracy is meticulous in describing its key political office; in addition, the House itself has recently delineated the role of the First Ministers in Scotland and in Wales. Our will may be suspect, but our competence is not.
	Of course, the office has changed since the time of Walpole, who became the first Prime Minister in 1721 and who spent his day eating Norfolk apples on the Treasury Bench. Each incumbent has added something and the office inexorably continues the trend of accumulating power—but that is no force of nature; it is not beyond our control. I propose that we in Parliament stop spectating and make a conscious decision that the evolution has gone far enough—that we define the prime ministership as it is now in law, and that the Executive power should not grow further without the clear consent of this Parliament or a future Parliament. If Parliament does not have the responsibility to draw that line in the sand, it has no real purpose at all and our transition to the dignified part of the constitution is complete.
	Defining the prime ministership does not weaken it and it is not my intention to do that, but neither does my acceptance of a strong Executive imply acceptance of a feeble Parliament. We do not have to choose between the lyrics and the music of our democracy. Indeed, being clear about what the prime ministership can do will only help Parliament to rediscover and redefine its own destiny as we are squeezed between devolution, Europe and globalism. It will give us a sustainable role for the future.
	A healthier Parliament will be a help to the prime ministership. We in this place can add value through accountability, scrutiny, value for money and even delivery of policies. All those are reasons why the current Prime Minister and those to come should welcome—indeed, initiate—a new relationship with Parliament, rather than stand in its way.
	My unambitious Bill is designed merely to consolidate in one statute all the prime ministerial powers that already exist. The one modest innovation is to suggest that Parliament takes its part in the process of choosing our Prime Minister. Parliament has become the electoral college that briefly flickers into life on general election night, with the media left to acclaim the prime ministerial winner.
	The Bill proposes that the day after the election the House meets, just as the Bundestag in Germany meets, and elects the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would then go to the palace in the normal way. Symbolically at least, that would acknowledge the House as the ultimate source of Executive power. It would be some riposte to those who say that Parliament is just bypassed and is a rubber stamp, or that the elective dictatorship is not even elective.
	As the new century begins, knee deep in political cynicism and failing participation, we have a clear and present duty to prepare ourselves for the future and to examine our institutions without exception, however exalted, to ascertain whether they and we measure up. We cannot examine a shadow behind a veil, a Prime Minister with unacknowledged powers who is shrouded in the mysteries of an unwritten constitution. Let us now bring our mightiest office out of the darkness into the dawn of democracy, and into the light of the law.
	The contract that our society has with government must be written down. I ask, therefore, that the House consents to allow my Bill to be printed, and that an open, non-partisan debate can begin on the future of the Executive and the legislature.
	As the prime ministership approaches its 300th birthday, we might dare to assume that Walpole's experiment is here to stay. Now, our mature democracy deserves to see the office revealed honestly for what it truly is. If it chooses, this Parliament can start to bring the prime ministership, and with it itself, into the new millennium.

Tony Wright: I shall be brief, but perhaps not as brief as one former Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, of whom it was once said that he would never use one word when none would do. Mr. Attlee would not survive for five minutes in today's world of soundbite and spin, but that is our loss and not his. He would disapprove strongly of the Bill. He was the quintessential Cabinet chairman, who said and believed that a Prime Minister must remember that he is only the first among equals. However, with people like Ernie Bevin, Herbert Morrison and Nye Bevan at the Cabinet table, that was a reminder that was unlikely to be necessary.
	I turn to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is a dangerous man. He has written a seditious tract, which he has been disseminating among a gullible public, and now he introduces a subversive Bill. It may seem innocuous enough. It claims only to constitutionalise the position and powers of the Prime Minister, now to preside over his own Department. The fact that it blows a hole through Cabinet government is the least alarming aspect of what is being proposed. My hon Friend's real intention is to engineer nothing less than a constitutional revolution, though he is not honest enough to say so.
	The House will begin to understand why I describe my hon. Friend as a dangerous man and why this is a subversive Bill. He believes that the power of the personal executive has increased, is increasing and should not be diminished but recognised. That is what the Bill would do. That is surely outrageous enough. It makes a mockery of all our preoccupations about whether there are too many special advisers in No. 10, whether the Cabinet Office has been annexed to a Prime Minister's Department and whether Cabinet government is now dead. How dare he mock our concerns in this way. How can we go on warning of the dangers of a Prime Minister becoming a President when my hon. Friend has the nerve to suggest that a British Prime Minister with a secure majority and a unified party already has far more unchecked power than an American President could ever dream of?
	But it gets much worse. My hon. Friend seems to believe that a system of strong government needs a system of strong accountability. Again, that may sound reasonable, but does the House understand that it means an end to Parliament as we know and love it? We would have to stop being happy hamsters on a wheel and become eager beavers, required to think for ourselves in holding the Executive to account and debating the great issues of the day; nobody would write our press releases for us and there would be no collective line to save us the effort of thinking. Instead of representing Parliament to the people, we would have to start representing the people to Parliament.
	The parliamentary pantomime would have to close down and parliamentary sketch writers who lampoon us would be out of a job. Lazy journalists who are interested in us only if we depart from the script would have to start taking us seriously. Do we really want to go down that road? That only begins to touch on the enormity of my hon. Friend's proposals. We depend on the Executive. We may call ourselves a legislature, but we know that our secret dream is to join the Executive; that is what having a job in this place means. We sit by the Executive's table, hoping to touch the cloth and ready to catch any crumbs that fall. We may only become the Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Parliamentary Private Secretary, but that gives purpose to our lives.
	My hon. Friend wants to deprive us of our dreams; he wants to take nanny away from us and turn us into grown-ups. The House will understand why he has to be stopped. What is all that nonsense about the separation of powers? In the 18th century, we may have told ourselves that that was how our Government worked, but it was the secret of good government. The Americans and others may even have believed it and acted upon it, but we soon took the precaution of abolishing it. The ultimate wisdom of that course of action stands revealed today in the multi-faceted personage of our illustrious Lord Chancellor, but it also stands revealed in the glories of a supine Parliament and a passive people. We believe in strong, unchecked and unencumbered government, which has taken all the old prerogative powers of the Crown and kept them for itself. That has given us the most concentrated system of unchecked power of any democracy in the world, and we love it.
	We pride ourselves on our strong Government; we believe in the idea of winner takes all as long as we are the winner. We do not intend to share power with anybody, certainly not a second Chamber. We like things the way they are; we like to be able to talk about the glory of parliamentary sovereignty while having the convenience of the Executive exercising it for us. If the Executive invite us to abolish habeas corpus in, say, an hour or an afternoon, we are happy to oblige. If they are kind enough to fix the membership of our Select Committees for us, it would be churlish to want to do that for ourselves. We may sometimes say that we would like things to be different, but the truth is that we need our comfort blanket and do not intend to give it up lightly.
	We do not want the Executive to be taken away from us, as my hon. Friend proposes in his Bill. Of course, it almost was taken away. In 1701, exactly 300 years ago, the Act of Settlement decreed that henceforth no placeman of the Monarch—a Minister to us—could be a Member of Parliament and all advice given to the Monarch by the Privy Council should be seen by Parliament. The Whigs rightly had nothing to do with that kind of restriction on prerogative power, and the provision was repealed before it could be implemented. So we never had a separation of powers, and the legislature and the Executive became one.
	Now the Bill wants to take us back 300 years and sever Parliament's dependency on the Executive. It does not have the courage to propose a written constitution, which is the inevitable end of the process. Fortunately, knowing the House of Commons as I do, I am confident that it will prefer to cling to the apron strings of Executive power and have nothing to do with my hon. Friend's dangerous and subversive Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. David Curry, Donald Anderson, Mr. Michael Mates, Jean Corston, Mr. John Horam, Mr. Chris Mullin, Dr. Ian Gibson and Mr. Edward Leigh.

Prime Minister (Office, Role and Functions)

Mr. Graham Allen accordingly presented a Bill to define the office, role and functions of the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury; to make arrangements for his appointment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 60].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Civil Defence (Grant) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill is designed to apply the standard disciplines that cover public expenditure to a relatively small part of local government spending—the sum used to finance the administration of local authority emergency planning units totalling less than £20 million this financial year. It is important to stress at the outset that the Bill does not set the level of spending, but provides a mechanism for determining grants and the fair and equitable distribution of expenditure.
	The Bill is a short, two-clause measure that will formalise the Government's practice of designating a formula to allocate resources, and allow Ministers to put in place a more effective strategic framework to manage the allocation of grants to local councils for emergency planning purposes under regulations made under the Civil Defence Act 1948. The Government are now engaged on their third comprehensive spending review, the purpose of which is to match public expenditure with our policy priorities so that we can achieve outcomes that make a real difference to the people of this country. Naturally, we want to be sure that the prioritisation process is reflected on the ground and can take effect. In short, we want the money to be spent for the intended purpose and allocated in a fair and reasonable manner.
	The grants that we make to local authorities for the purpose of civil defence have always been intended for that specific purpose. The grant supports the local authority emergency planning units which prepare, train and exercise plans that guard against the risk of a variety of emergencies and disasters. Emergency planning officers ensure that local authorities, in conjunction with emergency services, are ready to respond effectively to every potential eventuality. To do so, local authorities need certainty and the ability to plan ahead. They need to know how much the Government are going to make available in support of emergency planning activities for each financial year, and need a clear indication of what will be available provisionally for future years. They need to know how the total is going to be allocated among them so that they can make their own calculation of their share of the cake.
	With this knowledge, local authorities will be able to approach the task methodically and with a stronger commitment for the longer term, in a field which, by its nature, is all about planning ahead. Until this year, local councils had that certainty, but a recent legal challenge deprived them of it. The Bill will restore that certainty and the framework that allows local authorities to plan ahead with confidence.
	Traditionally, the Government have always distributed the civil defence grant by a formula. Until autumn last year, each authority was given a set sum, with various additions, depending on the type of authority and population. However, last year, the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority lodged a judicial review to challenge its own formula allocation for that year, for which it obtained leave to move in the High Court.
	It subsequently transpired that a lacuna exists in statute law, unusually inhibiting the Government's grant allocation powers in this small field of local government finance. Accordingly, the Home Office agreed to review its grant allocation to Merseyside for that year, so in the end the case did not proceed to a full judicial hearing. Nevertheless, the point had been made that the Government could no longer distribute the grant according to a pre-determined formula, and local authorities in England and Wales were thereafter able to claim any amount of money for emergency planning on an individual demand-led basis, rather than a national strategic basis.
	That has caused problems for both local authorities and the Government, and the inability to plan ahead financially is clearly undesirable. The Government need to ensure that the civil defence grant is allocated on a national strategic basis according to a fair formula, and is not soaked up in a distorted or haphazard manner. That is the purpose of this short Bill. The House may find it helpful if I set the measure in the wider context of emergency planning and civil contingencies activities currently in operation.

Tim Collins: On the funding implications of the Bill, the Minister explained at the beginning that the Bill was about setting up a mechanism, rather than determining a level of grant. He will remember that when the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), was responsible for the measure, when it was still a Home Office matter, he issued a press release on 22 June accompanying the publication of the Bill, in which he stated:
	"This short, technical Bill would enable us to return to the previous funding levels for the Civil Defence Grant."
	The explanatory notes provided by the Home Office point out that since the legal case, expenditure in the current financial year is expected to rise from about £14 million to £19.5 million. The comments of the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs imply that the Bill will enable a return to levels of about £14 million a year—in other words, roughly a 25 per cent. cut in the expenditure in the present financial year. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that and tell the House whether he expects, as a result of the passage of the Bill—assuming that it goes through both Houses—that funding would return to the previous levels, as set out by his right hon. Friend in the summer.

Christopher Leslie: I shall deal later in my speech with the hon. Gentleman's points about the current financial situation. Suffice it to say that the Government have not yet made a decision about the next financial year, other than the usual pencilling in of the £14 million referred to in the press release.
	There are many different aspects to the subject of emergency planning and civil contingencies activities, ranging from the detection of risk, through prevention, protection and preparedness, to the response and recovery activities following an emergency situation. Spending on preparing and planning for emergencies and disasters at a local level—the limited subject of the Bill—is not the same thing as our expenditure on responding to and recovering from disaster.
	Let me give the House some idea of the scale of our commitment to the emergency services in England and Wales, which bear the brunt of the work tackling the consequences of disasters. Large sums of public money are being spent on front-line emergency services—for example, more than £9,000 million this year for the police, £775 million on the ambulance service and £1,650 million on the fire service.
	As one of the Ministers working closely on civil contingency issues, especially since 11 September, I know that we can take great comfort from the fact that our emergency services are among the best in the world. We have an impressive resource with a track record of dealing with extremely demanding situations in an efficient and professional way.
	Of course, much of the public expenditure spent on the blue-light emergency services goes towards preventive planning work. Avoiding and thwarting disaster in the first place is clearly preferable to the task of recovering from it, and the emergency services reflect that in their priorities. That applies also to the work of other protective agencies; for example, the efforts of those involved in coastal and flood defences, with their budget of £377 million this year. Since 11 September a further £30 million has been made available to the Metropolitan and other police forces.
	The expenditure on those principal emergency service activities dwarfs the expenditure that we are discussing today on the administration of local emergency planning units, which of course play an important role. However, the House will appreciate that it is necessary to illustrate the bigger picture—the jigsaw—in which the civil defence grant is just one small piece.
	To put today's business in context, I emphasise that this small but important Bill is not the Government's only or last word on bringing our civil contingencies arrangements up to date—far from it. As hon. Members may know, following 11 September, the Government set in hand a swift and comprehensive review of all our plans and arrangements to deal with emergency situations. Under the leadership of the Home Secretary in his capacity as Chairman of the Cabinet's Civil Contingencies Committee, significant work is under way to strengthen the resilience to disaster of the whole of the United Kingdom, with particular emphasis on key facilities in the capital and also on our ability to cope with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will know that I asked a parliamentary question yesterday that was answered today. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he has any plans to restrict public access to information on major chemical sites held on public registers on security grounds. The answer that I received suggests that those registers will, understandably, be restricted, because of the sensitivity of some of the information. For the benefit of the public, will my hon. Friend reinforce the point that that does not imply that the Government are seeking to diminish those security arrangements, and are indeed increasing them?

Christopher Leslie: I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the Government are making sure that all our arrangements to protect large chemical sites and other areas of hazard are always updated and improved. In the light of the events of 11 September, we have looked again at the information that is available about key areas. Without going into detail, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary and others involved in the Cabinet's Civil Contingencies Committee have been looking closely and making sure that extra protective measures to prevent potential attack are put in place at key sensitive sites.
	The civil contingencies secretariat, now located at the Cabinet Office—which explains why I am introducing the Bill—has been engaged in the co-ordination of efforts across all Government Departments. That is a top priority and good progress is being made in reviewing and improving systems. Simultaneously, we have pressed ahead with the emergency planning review launched by the Deputy Prime Minister with a consultation document issued at the beginning of August.
	The Government believe that we will need a new statutory framework for dealing with civil contingencies to replace the Civil Defence Act 1948. Responses to the consultation are being analysed following the closing date at the end of October, and a clear consensus is emerging.
	In drawing together the results of the emergency planning review and the wider ongoing exercise to strengthen our civil contingencies capabilities, the Government intend to consider how best to apply the lessons learned in a new piece of legislation. Naturally, I am not in a position today to anticipate the legislative programme or timetable, but the Government are looking at reform and modernisation for the longer term. Today we are primarily focused on an interim measure dealing with a small but still significant part of our much wider effort to deal with emergencies.
	Local authorities currently carry out emergency planning services under the Civil Defence Act 1948, which was introduced after the second world war and imposed on local authorities the statutory duty to plan a defensive response to hostile attack. That Act was supplemented by regulations, most notably in 1953 and 1993, which outlined more details on expenditure and provided for changes in local government and the creation of new types of local authorities. The Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986, which had been a private Member's Bill, provided for local authorities to use their civil defence resources not only in response to hostile attack, but for peacetime emergencies. It is now generally recognised, however, that that legislation is anachronistic and that new legislation is required. As I said, it is anticipated that the emergency planning review will recommend a way forward and that new legislation will be introduced when parliamentary priorities allow.
	The civil defence grant enables local authorities to fulfil their civil defence duties by formulating multi-agency plans to respond to any eventuality that may arise. Local authority emergency planning officers liaise with their local emergency services counterparts, other local authority departments, local NHS trusts, the Environment Agency, local business operators, voluntary organisations, faith and community groups and others in order to prepare arrangements for responding to emergencies. Thus, the civil defence grant is spent by local authorities on staff salaries and expenses, office accommodation and service costs, telephones, emergency planning team support costs, training and exercising.
	The civil defence grant does not pay for equipment for responding to emergencies or for the response itself. Local authority costs incurred during an emergency can be reimbursed under the Bellwin scheme, which is named after Lord Bellwin, the Minister in the Department of the Environment, as it then was, who introduced the system in the 1980s. The scheme allows for reimbursement at 85 per cent. for anything more than 0.2 per cent. of a local authority's annual budget. All responsible authorities will have some funds in reserve and they should be expected to utilise them, but the Government are prepared to assist them with extra costs. During the floods last year, exceptional payments were made at 100 per cent. under the Bellwin scheme. In the light of recent experiences, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has announced that the Bellwin scheme is being reviewed.
	The Bill contains only two clauses. It substitutes new provisions for section 3 of the Civil Defence Act 1948 in so far as it applies to authorities in England and Wales. New Section 3(1) of the Act confers on the designated Minister—currently, that is the Home Secretary—a grant-making power to every authority that has a civil defence function. New section 3(2) requires that Minister to determine the aggregate amount of grant each financial year and the specific grant for each authority, and to publish those amounts and the criteria by which they have been calculated. New section 3(3) allows the Minister to use different criteria in relation to different authorities and to vary determinations.
	New section 3A of the 1948 Act allows the designated Minister to pay a discretionary grant to any authority with civil defence functions. New section 3B provides for the Minister to determine when grant is paid, ensures recovery of any over-payment of grant and allows conditions to be applied to the payment of that grant. Those provisions are very similar to measures contained in sections 46 and 47 of the Police Act 1996, but as the amounts of grant involved are not on the same scale, those provisions have not been replicated. We hope that the Bill will have effect from the next financial year, which would allow the Government to return to the position that we were in before last year's legal action.

Andrew Selous: The Minister has been speaking about the grants that are given to local authorities for emergency planning. Is he aware that, in Bedfordshire, the Government's intended plans would result in a 33 per cent. cut in the emergency planning budget? That would cause us to lose an emergency planning officer and an emergency planning assistant and ensure that we could not mount one of the three eight-hour operational shifts that are required in respect of an emergency planning assistant. The matter is causing great concern to my county council.

Christopher Leslie: I shall try to find out a bit more about the situation in Bedfordshire. My understanding is that the estimate for spending in 2001–02 has increased by 53 per cent. in one year; that is, since the previous financial year. That illustrates the point about the demand-led budget that we are discussing. I entirely accept that we need to find new ways of allocating sufficient resources for emergency planning purposes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we need a nationally strategic and coherent framework in which to allocate resources.

Tim Collins: As the Minister is speaking about the way in which the system is working now, before the Bill completes its passage, will he address the very interesting remarks that are reported in the excellent Library note that was prepared for the purpose, among others, of this debate? The note reports a conversation between an Officer of the Library and a Cabinet Office official. The conversation deals with the way in which the system works after the Merseyside legal case and prior to the passage of the Bill. It is stated that a local authority must have conversations with central Government about what it would propose to spend, agree with central Government about what it will spend the money on and also spend the money reasonably and within an agreed budget. Will he confirm that that is how the situation works currently and that it is not the case, as might have been implied by what he told my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), that a county council can jack up spending however it likes and without any basis for doing so?

Christopher Leslie: Clearly, that was one of the corollaries of the resolution of the legal action. The question about finance for local authorities, which have naturally increased their claims for this financial year, involves a number of criteria, including the reasonableness test. The difficulties arise for the Government when they are trying to assess the many local authority bids. For example, the process of assessing and auditing reasonableness might be disproportionate to the grant that is paid in the first place, which, at £15 million to £20 million, is relatively small. We need to find a formula system that can allocate the resources far more efficiently and a demand-led, authority-by-authority system.

Don Foster: While the Minister is speaking about the current system—his implied criticism was almost that local authorities were flinging everything into the pot and trying to get as much money as they could—will he accept that the situation was not helped by the fact that the Home Office, which wrote to all local authorities, specifically stated in its letter of 22 December that it did not intend to issue guidelines to them about what they should include in their bids?

Christopher Leslie: The provisions on what may or may not be paid for by civil defence grant have not changed. Local authorities have a fairly limited series of activities that can be paid for under the regulations that I mentioned—a point that I hope to develop later. The issues and subjects on which the money can be spent have not altered. It is simply a question of ensuring that the sums themselves are reasonable. It is that whole process that has been focused on the demand-led side of things and which explains why the Government feel that we need to have a more formula-based approach to these matters, such as that which applies to all other aspects of local government expenditure.
	The Government have acted responsibly in the past by advising local authorities what grant they would receive for three consecutive financial years and allowing them to budget and plan their finances accordingly. We intend to proceed just as responsibly in the future. As I said, the Bill does not set the level of grant, which is decided by Ministers.
	The end of the cold war saw a gradual reduction in the amount of civil defence grant allocated in the 1980s and early 1990s, largely because the original purpose of planning for response to hostile attack from a foreign power had subsided. In recent years, however, the level of civil defence grant has reached a plateau at just over £14 million. The legal challenge has destabilised the budgeting process, leaving the Government with no way of managing expenditure. No responsible Government can stand by and let that situation continue, so the Bill will provide the remedy.
	Bids have come in from local authorities totalling approximately £22 million, and later reducing to £18.5 million, as the opportunity has arisen to use the deficiencies in the legislation. Local authorities usually contribute to their emergency planning services from their own general funds. However, this year, many authorities are naturally making the most of the opportunity to get the money from central Government and may be spending their own resources on other items. However, the distortion to the budgeting and planning process cannot be allowed to continue.
	While the Bill seeks to close the loophole in the law, the Government recognise that the financing of local emergency planning needs to be reconsidered, and that is why we are seeking to redress this matter on a longer term basis through the emergency planning review.
	Although the Bill received its First Reading on 22 June, and was therefore prepared before the tragic events of 11 September, it remains a necessary instrument in the Government's policy for a more strategic and comprehensive national resilience framework involving the work of local authority emergency planning officers. The Government recognise and applaud the work that local authorities have done in emergency planning. The result of that work over many years is that they were prepared to respond to the various emergencies that have occurred in the past year or so—the fuel dispute, the unexpectedly extensive flooding last year, and the foot and mouth outbreak this year.
	Although the events of 11 September have heightened awareness levels, local authorities have not been asked by the Government to do any significant extra work at this stage, not least because well-worked plans capable of tackling a number of eventualities are already in place. Obviously, local authorities have been reminded to ensure that their emergency procedures are up to date.
	Local authority emergency planning officers provide a valuable service, co-ordinating the planning and preparations necessary to deal with emergencies in any shape or form. Their work alongside the emergency services is of immense value, and goes a long way to ensuring that the effects of any disaster on a local community are mitigated as far as possible. The Bill will help local authorities to continue to carry out those functions by providing them with a fair, open and secure framework for funding. I commend the Bill to the House.

Tim Collins: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out a number of the issues before us with a considerable degree of clarity. It is helpful for the House to have the chance to debate civil defence issues. We shall discuss in a moment whether this is the right legislation at the right time.
	Public interest in civil defence is arguably at its highest level for 15 years, since the concerns about the nuclear arms race that prevailed in the 1980s. I hope that there will be cross-party consensus on the idea that the first duty of a Government of any colour is to provide for the safety of their citizens and for protection against the consequences of armed or hostile attack. I am delighted that the Prime Minister said very much the same thing in our debate on 8 October. When commenting on the events of 11 September, he said:
	"We must safeguard our country . . . Our first responsibility is the safety of the public. Since 11 September, every one of our arrangements has been under scrutiny."
	He referred to
	"extensive contingency planning"
	and said:
	"We are doing all that we reasonably can to anticipate the nature of, and thwart, any potential retaliation."
	He also said that
	"we would be foolish to be anything other than highly vigilant".—[Official Report, 8 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 813.]
	One of our contentions is that, contrary to what the Minister said, the Bill—which was prepared before 11 September—has not been adequately revised in the light of the events of that day, and of the consequent changes in Government policy and in the national security status. I should stress, as I have before in the House and elsewhere, that I have no criticism of the Government's general handling of the crisis, or of the Prime Minister's decision immediately to align this country with the United States. Indeed, I would say that the Prime Minister's conduct of these matters has been superb. It is in that constructive spirit that I hope that we can discuss the civil defence implications of what happened on that day.
	We are dealing with a crisis on an historic scale. Those are similar to the words used by the Prime Minister in his speech to the Labour party conference, when he said that
	"the events of 11 September marked a turning point in history, when we confront the dangers of the future."
	He said also that
	"every reasonable measure of internal security is being taken"
	and that those who had committed the acts on 11 September
	"will not desist from further acts of terror."
	In other words, the need for civil defence in this country is probably at its highest for many years, and the nature, imminence and seriousness of the threat to our citizenry is at its height. Yet, although the Government have not made any final decisions, the Minister confirmed in his response to my earlier intervention that they are "pencilling in" a reduction of about 25 per cent. in the amount provided by central Government to support the civil defence activities of local authorities.
	It is worth putting that in context, because the Home Secretary wrote to every hon. Member on 9 November to say that
	"the Government has been scrutinising every one of our arrangements for protecting the public . . . We do not believe that the overall level of threat to the UK has increased beyond the heightened levels following the events of September 11."
	It is, therefore, the judgment of the Home Secretary that the threat to the people of the United Kingdom has reached "heightened levels" since 11 September. He went on:
	"Our objective is to do everything that can be done to enhance our resilience and protect our key facilities, utilities and essential services."
	The Home Secretary has, of course, gone further still, as we heard earlier this week during our consideration of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. He formally issued a declaration under the European convention on human rights, in relation to the provisions that he intends to introduce in that Bill. He cited article 15, which states that
	"in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation"
	it is permissible for him to act in the way that he is in relation to detention and habeas corpus.
	The Government are telling us—entirely accurately and wholly responsibly—that we are in the midst of a
	"public emergency threatening the life of the nation",
	while proposing to go ahead with legislation drafted long before 11 September—I have no criticism about the fact that it was drafted then—for the purpose of restricting and perhaps reducing the amount of money that local authorities choose to spend on civil defence.

Christopher Leslie: It is important that the hon. Gentleman understands the scope of the expenditure that we are discussing in the civil defence grant. We are considering the administration of local authority emergency planning officers, not expenditure on response to or recovery from disasters. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that into the context of the wider measures that the Government have taken.

Tim Collins: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, because I was about to come to the importance in any civil defence of the local dimension. I shall quote from documents prepared by the emergency planning department, which used to be in the Home Office and is now in the Cabinet Office. Its website states:
	"The first response in any disaster is at the local level."
	It goes on to stress that point further, as part of a question and answer feature referring to integrated emergency management. I understand that this is the official Government policy on emergency planning:
	"The prime responsibility for dealing with disasters lies at local level where resources and expertise are best placed to provide an effective response."
	So, in answer to the Minister's point, of course we welcome the Government's announcement of additional resources for the police, the armed forces and many others who would have a role in dealing with the consequences of—God forbid—another attack, or other disaster linked to or consequent on the events of 11 September. However, the Minister must acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that we are not talking about theoretical, "paper" or arbitrary changes in the quality of local authority responses and abilities to plan for emergencies. We are talking about local authorities contemplating making significant reductions in their staffing levels.
	My hon. Friend referred to the fact that his local authority may have to remove a member of staff without whom it cannot maintain its emergency call centre 24 hours a day. None of us knows when a disaster or problem might occur, but it would be a matter of concern if one happened in the eight hours out of 24 for which there was no cover. The Local Government Association takes a similar view:
	"Emergency planning and response are core functions of local authorities".
	Those matters are not bolt-on additions or peripheral, nor are they unimportant to local authorities in emergency planning and responding to a disaster, whether it be man-made or natural.

Julian Lewis: Surely the distinction drawn by the Minister between pre-disaster planning and post-disaster responses is false. Is it not a fact that the planning that we have to undertake is naturally on a much larger scale since 11 September and therefore requires much greater resources?

Tim Collins: My hon. Friend is right. I make no particular criticism, as none of us has 100 per cent. or even 1 per cent. ability to foresee everything that will happen, but a Home Office consultation document published in August—before the events of 11 September—and entitled "Future of Emergency Planning in England and Wales", which no doubt informed the Bill's drafting, says at paragraph 4.14:
	"In the last decade or so, there has been a clear reduction in the threat of war".
	That is the context in which the Government made policy relating to emergency planning.
	I shall deal with the money provided by central Government for civil defence, but before the Minister or another Labour Member points it out, let me make it clear that the reduction started not in 1997 but in 1990. That was the year after the fall of the Berlin wall and the liberation of eastern Europe from communism, so it is hardly surprising that Governments of both political colours through the 1990s operated on the assumption that war was less likely.
	Although my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) knows more of the detail than me, we remember that those of us who take an historical perspective always begin to worry when the Treasury or the Home Office says that war is unlikely in the next 10 years. Several of my hon. Friends recall that that was the Treasury assumption in the 1920s and early 1930s. Sad to say, there is recent evidence that the Treasury, as well as the Home Office, is again operating on that basis.
	Whatever people may have thought, reasonably or unreasonably, before 11 September, surely that assumption cannot be so readily endorsed post- 11 September. Whether we describe the current situation as a war or not, we should be cognisant of the fact that the press spokesman of the US President, the leader of the international coalition, said on Monday that the President is conscious that the US is "a nation at war".
	If the President believes that his nation is at war, there is a serious question mark over whether the United Kingdom, as America's closest ally in those proceedings and other matters, should operate in similar manner. I repeat that the Home Secretary said that we are in the midst of a
	"public emergency threatening the life"
	of the state.
	Let us deal with the precise reasons behind the Bill, which, as the Minister rightly said, relate to the legal action brought last year by the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority. He set the exact position out in detail and with some clarity, but neglected to say that the Home Office chose not to contest the case. Therefore, it is perhaps no surprise that the judge upheld the authority's case and ruled that under current legislation there is no provision to introduce cash limits.
	Let me immediately make it clear that, as a Conservative Front Bencher, I am hardly likely to say that cash limits are evil and should be resisted at all times. Labour Members will be aware that my party is re-profiling its view on public services, but I hasten to add that that does not mean that we are suddenly in favour of spending any sum that anyone suggests for any public purpose whatever. Clearly, we are not.
	However, although we are dealing with serious circumstances and a context that the Minister was kind enough to confirm, the legal situation means that local authorities cannot spend under the civil defence heading money unrelated to civil defence or emergency planning. They must spend sums that are reasonable and, in the context of the crisis, their spending is not gigantic.
	We must ask whether the Bill is the most sensible civil defence measure that the Government could introduce at a time when many civil defence experts believe that there is a more urgent need for other legislation. I shall set out the possibilities in a moment, and a number of my hon. Friends want to point out that, since the introduction of the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986, which slightly regularised procedures, local authorities have often used civil defence funds made available to them to deal with other emergencies and difficulties.
	We must reflect on the fact that, in the past 12 months, there have been not one, not two, but three largely unexpected but very serious public emergencies in this country—although I do not blame the Government for every aspect of those. First we had the fuel crisis, then the floods, which affected large parts of England and Wales. Then we had the foot and mouth crisis. In such circumstances, we must wonder whether the Government are acting wholly appropriately in introducing the Bill.
	I said that I would touch on the way in which civil defence grant has been reduced, and, once again, I acknowledge that it peaked and began to fall under the Conservative Government. However, it has continued to fall since 1997. Although local authorities may be mildly interested in the exchanges that take place across the Floor of the House about who did what when and what happened before and after a general election, they perhaps focus not on that but on the fact that the reduction is 38 per cent. in cash terms since 1990 and some 55 per cent. in real terms. That is clearly a substantial cut on any basis.

Christopher Leslie: Perhaps I may re-profile the hon. Gentleman on a couple of points. He will be aware that the civil defence grant budget has levelled off at about £14 million since 1997, so there has been no reduction on our watch. Most importantly, it must be reiterated that the Bill is not about setting the budget for the next financial year. That is a matter for Ministers and a debate for another time. What we have to deal with is the question whether there should be a formula to allocate the grant.

Tim Collins: If the Minister wants to do so, he would be right to point out that the Government inherited low inflation when they came to office in 1997. We have difficulties with their economic mismanagement, but they have not succeeded in achieving high inflation since 1997, nor have they achieved zero inflation either. In 2001, £14 million does not buy what it bought in 1997, so a freeze in cash terms is the same as a continued fall in real terms.
	I come specifically to the Minister's reiteration of the centrepiece of his case: the fact that the Bill is about procedure not outcome—about creating a possibility for a Minister to set a rate rather than about determining that rate. The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs was previously responsible for these matters and I have already put to the Minister what his right hon. Friend said in the official press release of 22 June, which described the Bill. He said:
	"This short, technical Bill"—
	no doubt that is a description with which the Minister will happily concur—
	"would enable us to return to the previous funding levels for the Civil Defence Grant."
	Let us now consult the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, which tell us the difference between the previous and the current levels. According to them,
	"in the current financial year expenditure is expected to rise from approximately £14 million"—
	the level that the Minister mentioned—
	"to £19.5 million."
	No one needs a GCSE in maths to work out that moving from £19.5 million back to £14 million—in other words, returning to the previous funding levels—means not keeping expenditure the same or increasing it, but reducing it. In fact, it means reducing it in cash terms by about 25 per cent., and in real terms by rather more.
	When I put the point to the Minister earlier—I am happy to give way to him again if he wishes to intervene—he did not say "We do not intend to reduce spending on civil defence". Nor did he say "There may have been a one-off increase recognising the existence of past difficulties, but we do not want any further increases". What he said was "We have pencilled in £14 million—again—for the future". Those sound to me like the words of a Minister who is preparing to reduce the amount spent in the current financial year.
	Our case is this. Regardless of whether such action would be right in normal circumstances and regardless of whether it will be right in two or three years, it is difficult to see that it can be right now, after what happened on 11 September and given what the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and others have said about our present situation.
	Earlier this afternoon, I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that I intended to refer to the figure of 686 billion. He visibly blanched: he definitely whitened. That is, of course, an American rather than a British figure, but it is worth noting that since 11 September Congress has appropriated $686 billion to deal with the domestic implications of what happened then, and that it is currently discussing with the White House whether an additional $40 billion should be provided purely for what it calls homeland security—something that is in many respects, although not all, similar to civil defence as provided in this country.
	I do not suggest for a moment that we should move from £14 million to the equivalent of $40 billion. Nevertheless, it is at least interesting to note the United States belief that the present international situation requires not a small—not even a significant—but what on any terms would be described as a dramatic increase in allocations for all aspects of what it calls homeland security.
	I suspect that the vast majority of those outside the House who knew that we were debating the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill would assume that it had been presented by the Government, in the light of a major international emergency, to improve, enhance and expand civil defence. In fact, its purpose is to constrain, limit and perhaps even reduce local authority contributions to civil defence.
	Members should note what the Local Government Association said in its submission to the emergency planning review. I am not sure whether this was said before or after 11 September, but the impact is perhaps even more powerful if it was said before that date. The association said:
	"there needs to be a real and substantial increase in financial support for emergency planning work".
	It referred to huge demands on emergency response work, and said that
	"work would need to be undertaken to identify the right level of funding",
	but expressed the view that a
	"substantial increase would . . . be justified".
	I am not arguing that any or all demands for increases should be granted, or that public expenditure control should be abandoned. I am saying that, according to powerful voices inside and outside the country, it is more than slightly odd that the Government should present this Bill in the present circumstances.

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the press release to which he continually returns was pre-11 September? Does he accept that the view that a formula-driven approach could lower expenditure to normal levels was expressed in that light? Does he also accept that, by definition, a formula-driven approach can also be adjusted upwards in different circumstances? I am sure that such adjustments will be made.

Tim Collins: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has a hotline to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if the Minister had said that, I would have been very interested and, to an extent, reassured. In fact the Minister, speaking long after 11 September—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present—confirmed today that the Government had pencilled in £14 million, again, for future supplies of the civil defence grant.
	The hon. Gentleman's assumptions would be entirely reasonable if the Government had reviewed the position post-11 September, and had recognised that, at least for a short time, it would seem difficult to justify a return to wholly normal peacetime grant levels; but the Government do not appear to be there yet. Perhaps they will get there as a result of the hon. Gentleman's submissions, and those of my hon. Friends and others. I very much hope so.

Christopher Leslie: May I just clarify the issue of the grant for last year, this year and next year? When I spoke of "pencilling in", I was referring to the comprehensive spending review allocation. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we allocate resources for a three-year period, and we hope to do the same for the next three-year period. We are still engaged in discussions about the next comprehensive spending review. No decisions have yet been finalised: we are obviously looking at the whole post-11 September situation, but many other large sums are being spent on civil contingencies—not least the £30 million confirmed by the Chancellor yesterday, to be devoted to policing in London and elsewhere.

Tim Collins: What the Minister says is entirely right, and very reassuring. It simply reinforces my point. If the Government have recognised that they need to increase resources in all other areas, why are they producing legislation that they themselves say is likely to result in fewer resources in this connection? I realise that it is not the only aspect of civil contingency planning, but it is an important part.
	We must also ask why the Government thought it necessary to present this Bill if they were going to present legislation on civil defence. A strong consensus is emerging among those with a degree of expertise and experience that there is an urgent and increasing need for new legislation in this field, but not for this Bill. People who deal with these issues feel that what is needed is swift legislation to modernise the Civil Defence Act 1948, and to provide a new statutory basis for emergency management. Encouragingly, the Minister seemed to suggest that the Government recognised that need; indeed, it is mentioned in some of their consultation documents.
	According to the Local Government Association:
	"The current framework . . . does not ensure participation: that can only be secured by the imposition of a statutory duty."
	The association speaks of the need for a new duty of civil emergency planning, and describes in some detail what it would like to happen. It has also said that it
	"strongly supports a new statutory duty of civil emergency preparedness".
	It feels strongly that the present system does not deliver the level of effectiveness in terms of local response to civil contingencies—which, of course, may or may not be related to the events of 11 September—that is needed in the present climate.
	Many people are concerned about the way in which the whole business has been run. It is not just that this is not the Bill that should have been produced. The Government were entirely right to present legislation on civil defence, although many of us would argue that the legislation should have addressed the very concerns that the Minister touched on, and on which I know he is consulting. I do not doubt his personal commitment for a moment, but we need a degree of clarification—which, it must be said, cannot be found in the local authority world at the moment—in regard to who, in the present Government, is responsible for these matters. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and his hon. Friends have asked a number of questions about that, and I pay tribute to them. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) asked a very piercing question a little while ago, and the ministerial response was not all that it might have been.
	I shall give a classic example of the point. Today, I visited the Home Office website and found a statement on emergency planning. Although it is interesting that the Home Office still has an emergency planning website, the statement begins with these very reassuring words:
	"You may have been aware that since the General Election a decision has been awaited concerning the ministerial responsibility for emergency planning, and hence the parent department for the Emergency Planning Division (EPD). It has now been announced that ministerial responsibility for emergency planning is transferred from the Home Office to the Cabinet Office."
	The statement is dated August, which is apparently the last time that the Home Office emergency planning site was updated. Moreover, slightly disconcertingly, there was no link between the website and the Cabinet Office. Furthermore, in October, the Home Secretary was still responding to parliamentary questions with statements saying, for example, that he is "the Minister responsible" for civil defence preparations and that all matters were still under review following the events of 11 September.
	In the face of all the uncertainty and lack of clarity about exactly where emergency planning staff had gone—although their responsibilities have been transferred to the Cabinet Office, many staff still work in the Home Office—the general secretary of the Emergency Planning Society, which has great knowledge of these matters and with which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is associated, said:
	"Our emergency planning is a shambles . . . If a disaster like the terrorist attacks on New York was to occur over here, we couldn't possibly cope. Councils and the emergency services have never planned to deal with something that big."
	That is the scale of the problem facing us, and that is the nature of the difficulty caused by the fact that the Government have chosen to introduce this Bill rather than a different one.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with confusion about which Department is responsible. Did he, like me, note with interest that, when detailing the Bill's various provisions, the Minister specifically said that the Home Secretary is the designated Minister responsible for determining the formula? What are the hon. Gentleman's thoughts on that?

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman is on to an extremely important point, and I did notice that slip.

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Tim Collins: Perhaps the Minister is about to reassure the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and me on that point. We look forward to his doing so.

Christopher Leslie: I do so enjoy re-profiling, the joys of which I am learning minute by minute. We began the process of creating the new civil contingency secretariat at the Home Office precisely because we wanted to have at the centre of Government the ability to inter-relate with all Departments at a moment's notice. I think that many people have recognised the need for that. The process of creating it has reflected the responsibilities of the relevant Cabinet committee.
	The Home Secretary chairs the Civil Contingencies Committee, which has three Sub-Committees. One of the Sub-Committees deals specifically with London resilience and is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government; another specifically addresses chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear issues and is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs; and I chair the United Kingdom resilience Sub-Committee at the Cabinet Office. The responsibilities have been divided in that manner after 11 September. Hon. Members should, however, always bear it in mind that those matters are under the Home Secretary's leadership and that there is a transfer of functions order to establish the civil contingencies secretariat.

Tim Collins: I am not sure that that does clarify matters. I noticed, however, that in a slip of the tongue—I hope that he will forgive me for picking it up before it is rewritten by Hansard—the Minister mentioned the civil contingencies secretariat at the Home Office; it is of course at the Cabinet Office. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to his powers of memory in explaining the situation. When he was trying to remember who was in charge of each of the Sub-Committees, he looked a little like someone trying to do their nine-times table but grinding to a halt after reaching 81. Although there was a painful expression on his face when he did it, he got there in the end.
	The whole point that Conservative Members and, I believe, Liberal Democrat Members are making is that if the situation is not instantly clear and on the tip of the tongue for one of the responsible Ministers, how can it be clear to the public? Should we not consider having a Cabinet Minister with sole and specific responsibility for the matter, as is the case in the United States which has created the post held by Tom Ridge?

Don Foster: Speaking of ministerial slips, did the hon. Gentleman note the interesting way in which the Minister said that some of the arrangements at the Home Office were being made there to ensure that they were "at the centre of Government"? Is that not an odd phrase to be used by someone who works in the Cabinet Office?

Tim Collins: I did notice that. However, in fairness to the Minister, I think that that was a slip of the tongue and that he meant to say the Cabinet Office rather than the Home Office. We have probably had enough fun with him on that point, and I think that he understands where we are coming from.
	The final series of points that I shall make on the Bill relates to the fact that this is the House's first opportunity to debate issues arising from civil defence, emergency planning and the way in which the Administration have handled unexpected crises and difficulties. The history of those matters has been not at all encouraging. We have had, as I said, a fuel crisis. Many people in my part of the world, in Cumbria, believe that the Government might have reacted rather more rapidly to that crisis if the petrol stations had started running out of fuel in London and the home counties rather than in the north and north-west. There have been many criticisms of the way in which the crisis was handled.
	We can also debate the way in which the floods were handled at about this time last year. The floods produced a commitment by the Government that they would review those matters but there has not been a great deal of activity since then. I know that some of my hon. Friends may wish to develop that point in later speeches.
	Finally, and most seriously, we had the outbreak of the foot and mouth crisis. I do not propose going into that matter in any depth, other than to point out that many hon. Members will have read the very powerful Private Eye report which states that the outbreak
	"was allowed to escalate into the worst epidemic of the disease the world had ever seen."
	For my constituents and many others, not only in Cumbria but elsewhere, the Government's mismanagement of the outbreak was spectacular. At various times in the crisis, to defend themselves against the charge that they must have known the true situation before the last few days in February, when the official announcement was made, the Government said that they had contacted various people to get hold of railway timbers, for example, because that was part of "contingency planning"—which is particularly relevant to this debate. If the Government had a contingency plan, it was not a very good one. I think that emergency planning was better at local authority level than it was in central Government, but even that planning was not as good as it could have been had we had proper, adequately funded civil defence and emergency planning.

Mark Francois: This point is in no way party political. I simply ask my hon. Friend to join me in paying tribute to emergency planning officers across the United Kingdom who have had to deal with the three crises that he has rightly outlined. Many of them have also been working extremely long punishing hours since the events of 11 September to refresh and update whatever plans their local authorities had on the books. I think that it is appropriate, especially in a debate such as this, for the House to recognise the very real effort that they have made on behalf of the communities they serve.

Tim Collins: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point with which I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be happy to agree. Those people are at the forefront of public service. They make a huge difference to people's lives, and when they do their work well they make the difference between life and death for many of our fellow citizens. We should pay tribute to them and commend them for their work. I hope that emergency planning officers will feel that although there will necessarily be some differences between the parties in these debates, every hon. Member will wish to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to their work. I am sure that every hon. Member would also wish to give them strong backing and strong endorsement.
	Sadly, the Government—who are handling the general international situation admirably, with the full-hearted support of the Conservative party—have a record domestically not of resolving crises so much as creating them and making them worse. To adapt the famous insurance slogan, the Government always make a drama out of a crisis.
	Our fear about the Bill is that the Government are irresponsibly trying to reduce vital aspects of planning and public protection at the worst possible time. They have ignored the need for different, much needed and urgent legislation on civil defence by choosing to introduce the Bill instead of considering the matters it covers as part of a wider civil defence Bill. Consequently, the legislation is inappropriate and dangerously irrelevant at the moment. It has been introduced by a Government who have not demonstrated on this issue the grip and competence that we would wish.
	For those reasons, we have no choice but to oppose the Bill tonight, in the hope that it will encourage the Government to think again and to recognise that the issues are deeply important and that, especially in the crucial atmosphere prevailing since 11 September, local authorities need and deserve the strong backing of central Government. Local authorities should not feel that irrelevant and unnecessary penny-pinching will restrict them, at this of all times, in their vital activities.

Andrew Miller: The first assurance I seek from my hon. Friend the Minister is that the emergency planning that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) mentioned—the restructuring of the Conservative party—will not be funded by the Bill. We need to examine the issues calmly and carefully. This country has a superb record, under successive Governments, of planning to avoid risk. We try to avoid putting our citizens in positions where they could face some of the serious risks that we have seen as a result of appalling accidents and human error in other countries. Of course, nothing is ever perfect and human error does creep in. Notwithstanding the military issues that have been mentioned, both acts of God and human error need to be taken into account.
	We have an exceptionally good record, and the first issue that the Minister's Committee should consider in seeking to minimise the cost to the public is the continued planning for further risk avoidance. I have spoken to the Minister about the need for a fresh look at some overfly zones and the holding patterns for areas that are, by their very nature, hazard sites. As I said earlier, a written question was answered today on the issue of access to information about major chemical sites, some of which was previously held on public registers. I am sure that the House will be glad to hear that steps are being taken to ensure that sensitive information will, at least temporarily, be held on a more restricted basis. It is, however, important to reassure our constituents that the commitment of the Government and the security services to public safety is not only maintained but enhanced during this difficult time.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned the fuel protest several times. That is a bit rich for a Conservative Member, whose party supported the fuel protesters who put my constituents' lives at risk. When the protest started, the blockade at the Stanlow refinery meant that emergency vehicles could not gain access to the site. The hon. Gentleman will know that if an accident occurs in an oil refinery, it requires rapid reaction. In Cheshire, we have a superb network, in partnership with the in-house fire services of some of the chemical companies, that includes the Cheshire fire authority and the other fire authorities in surrounding areas, to provide a rapid response to any emergency. Those fuel protesters prevented access and, had there been a crisis, the outcome could have been very serious.
	If that argument does not persuade the hon. Gentleman, perhaps a description of events when Friends of the Earth decided to blockade Stanlow this summer—supported, I may say, by the Liberal Democrats—will do so. When I visited the emergency planning room to see how the matter was being handled, I saw that the first comment written on the whiteboard recorded the fact that public fire vehicles could not gain access to the site. I hope that the whole House will agree that emergency vehicles must have easy access to such important sites in case of any incident occurring.
	The public information issue is especially interesting. Work is being done that may have an impact on the long-term planning undertaken by my hon. Friend the Minister. Hon. Members will recall that some years ago, under the previous Administration—I make no criticism of them on this point—the old Ministry of Defence siren systems were removed. Several concerns have been expressed in my constituency, and others that contain chemical sites, that the warning systems in place are not adequate. People do not understand what the sirens mean. They do not know whether a certain siren sound means, "Get the hell out of here", or, "Close your windows and stay indoors." They do not even know which siren signals the all clear. A generation ago, those signals were well understood because, for reasons we all know about, the siren system was in regular use.
	I hope that my hon. Friend, within the framework of the Bill and the broader study of emergency planning, will consider some of the newer technologies that could assist in the provision of warning systems. One hon. Member—I can never remember his constituency—mentioned the emergency planning officers, and they have done a superb job. Members of the Emergency Planning Society have also considered some of the newer technologies, and—to give one example, which would not necessarily be the whole solution—it has been suggested that a national alert and information system could be developed using selectively addressable digital television systems. For less technical hon. Members, I can explain that that means that digital television receivers can be programmed with a range of identifiers. As a result, any group in the population can be selectively informed of any risk that might exist. As the technology advances, the interesting question arises of whether other Departments should be included in the debate.

Mark Francois: For the record, I inform the hon. Gentleman that my constituency is called Rayleigh. It is in Essex, and I am honoured to represent it.
	The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. An effective warning system must be understood by everyone. For instance, in 1940, everyone knew what it meant when the church bells rang. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

Andrew Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that the Department will consider the application of the technology that I have described, which was brought to my attention by a member of the Emergency Planning Society.
	Some military considerations have been raised. The BBC's website is reporting what is happening in the US, where the security services are considering in what circumstances additional security will be required. I am sure that our security services will do the same.
	The space shuttle Endeavour is due to take off again on Thursday. For the first time, a 30-mile no-fly zone around the launch site at the Kennedy Space Centre has been imposed. That is based on the assessment of risk, and we in this country must consider the relationship between our civil defence on the ground and the use of military services.
	In the previous debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave a clear assurance that, since 11 September, the RAF has been on stand-by to deal with any problems to do with nuclear safety. That is a fresh dimension that needs to be taken into account.
	I wish to comment on the proposed funding regime, and on the review of standard spending assessments. My district emergency planning liaison officer recently sent me a copy of a document containing the local response to the review of emergency planning drawn up by the chief executives of the district councils in Cheshire, and by the chief executive of the county council. A combined response of that sort is appropriate in Cheshire, where areas of risk spread across district boundaries. That requires local authorities to work together.
	I commend the document to my hon. Friend the Minister. In response to the question of whether funding should be delivered through the SSA, it states that
	"Cheshire Chief Executives have grave concerns over the proposal to support emergency planning activities through the SSA, and would like to see a continuation of a specific grant."
	That contrasts with the removal from SSAs of ring-fenced sums of money, which is what most hon. Members want the review of SSAs to recommend. However, it is possible that some common ground exists. The chief executives go on to state that they
	"feel that the proposed system . . . will only work if adequate, transparent and robust funding mechanisms"
	are in place. Equally, the direct responsibilities of shire districts must also be considered in any study that is undertaken.
	It is sad that so few hon. Members are in the Chamber this evening to debate these matters, which have important ramifications for areas such as mine where there are large hazards. The relationship between our civilian emergency workers and the more obvious aspects of emergency response after 11 September must be examined.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the Bill. It is a simple measure that will put us back on an even keel, but a much more long-term study should be undertaken to guarantee to citizens that the House takes seriously the risks that some people face. Parliament and Government must give proper resources to meet the needs of the emergency services.

Don Foster: The House readily and rightly pays tribute to the various emergency services—the police, fire and ambulance services—when there is a major civil emergency in this country. However, hon. Members rarely congratulate the people behind the scenes who plan and co-ordinate the activities of those organisations. On behalf of my party, I therefore join in the tributes that have been paid to all those who work in civil defence, and to the emergency planning officers.
	On 15 May 1997, I had the pleasure of speaking after the Minister made his maiden speech in the House. I recall that I referred specifically to the quality of that speech and the confidence with which it was delivered. Nothing has changed: the Minister lives up to the high expectations that we had of him. I am grateful for the way in which he described the Bill's contents, and for the way in which he set out what he called the "bigger jigsaw" of the country's civil defence structure. I am sure that the House is grateful for the opportunity to raise various issues in respect of civil defence, as they affect the Bill.
	It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). I pay tribute to him for introducing a new word into the lexicon of Conservative thinking, which he did when he spoke about the "re-profiling" of the party's views on public services.
	However, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale frightened me a little later in his speech when he kept mentioning the billions of pounds that the Americans are to spend on what they call "homeland security". I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is getting ideas. For a Conservative Member to consider spending billions on public services would be a significant U-turn, although it is one that Liberal Democrat Members might welcome.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made some important points. I agree with him that the Government are right to acknowledge that a problem exists at the present time, and that some form of legislation, at some point, is needed to regularise the way in which grants are awarded to the bodies responsible for planning and co-ordinating civil defence arrangements. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's view about dreadful timing. At the same time that we are debating the Bill, the Home Secretary is seeking to rush through the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill because apparently we are facing a national emergency.
	Underlying the wording of the Bill seems to be at least the possibility of an intention to cut the money provided by the Government to support and plan for vital civil defence work including, of course, anti-terrorism measures. My fear is that if the measure is about both capping and cutting resources for councils which plan our civil defence arrangements and co-ordinate the work of various emergency services, we will have a real difficulty on our hands.
	Over the past 12 months we have had floods, foot and mouth, terrorist bombs and the terrible events of 11 September. Just when we need the professionalism of our emergency services, it appears that the Government are sneaking in a 28 per cent. cut in the civil defence budget in what they call a short technical Bill.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman's point about finance has been made before this evening. Let me make it clear again that the Bill is about enabling Ministers to set a formula to allocate the grant, not about the level of the grant. Post-11 September, we are looking again at all funding arrangements. Although the previous comprehensive spending review pencilled in the sum of £14 million for that three-year period, we are reconsidering the arrangements in the light of all the representations that are being made.

Don Foster: I am grateful to hear the Minister repeat what he has said already. However, when the Bill was introduced on 22 June, the press release issued by the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, made the Government's underlying intention very clear. It says, very specifically:
	"This short technical Bill would enable us to return to the previous funding levels for the Civil Defence Grant."
	If the Minister is saying that the Government have changed their view, I would be delighted to hear it. Much more importantly, those responsible for civil defence planning around the country would be ecstatic. However, the Minister has not come to the Dispatch Box and said that he disowns what the Home Office Minister said on 22 June. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) said that he is confident that the Government will make changes, but the Minister did not assure him that a decision had been made. If the Minister is about to do so, we will be delighted.

Christopher Leslie: It is a simple point, and I will try and reiterate it clearly. The Bill is about enabling the Government to set a budget. It does not allocate the amount; those decisions have yet to be made. We are trying our best to calculate the level of civil defence grant for the next financial year.

Don Foster: Once again, the Minister has had the opportunity to stand at the Dispatch Box and disown the words of the Home Office Minister on 22 June. He could legitimately say that in the light of the events of 11 September, the Government have had second thoughts. He could say that what the Home Office Minister said in the press release at the time was reasonable, that they had intended to cut the figure from £19.5 million down to the previous level of £14 million, but that in the light of what happened on 11 September, they intended to raise the figure after all. The Minister has been given the opportunity to say that about five times, yet he has not done so. Therefore, there will remain significant doubt in the minds of many Members in the Chamber and anyone listening to the debate as to whether the Government intend to reduce the level of funding by 28.2 per cent. Until we get a clear statement from the Minister, I fear that that is the only interpretation that we can make of the Bill, because the only official statement that we have had on its meaning was in the press release of 22 June.
	I go further. The Home Office Minister had the gall to say:
	"The new arrangements would improve local authorities' ability to plan their expenditure when fulfilling their statutory responsibilities for civil defence."
	From what we have discovered so far today, that surely means that authorities can plan better but will probably have less to plan with.

Tim Collins: Does the hon. Gentleman also notice that, similarly, the Minister said earlier that the court case had "deprived"—I think that was his word—local authorities of clarity. It may or may not have deprived them of clarity, but it has given them rather a lot of money that the Minister seems anxious to take away.

Don Foster: That is absolutely right. One reason why we will seek to amend the Bill and delay the implementation of the new arrangements is to give each authority an opportunity to make it clearer to Ministers than they have been able to do so far the significant pressures that they are under and why there must be improvements in the level of funding rather than cuts, if cuts are to be made.
	To illustrate how concerned I am, I shall refer to the work of Bath and North East Somerset council's civil emergency planning unit. It has a Government budget of £51,000 to cover all its work. That is clearly inadequate, so the council adds another £74,000 from its own coffers, making the total amount of money available to the unit £125,000, the majority of which is not provided by the Government.
	I accept the Minister's point that that is not the only amount of money that is available to be spent when an emergency occurs. I fully accept that the Government have made additional sums of money available to local councils through the Bellwin fund, which, I acknowledge, will be changed. However, before my council can even get its hands on the Bellwin money, it must spend up to £340,000 of its own money. Major emergencies therefore draw heavily on the council tax payers in the area.
	The Minister will acknowledge—indeed, he already has done, given the way in which he introduced the Bill—that the money the Government make available through the civil defence grant budget is intended to cover a wide range of activities that relate to the planning, preparation and co-ordination of the likely activities of the various emergency services. It covers staff salaries, training activities, and so on.
	My local authority has £125,000 to spend on those activities. In the past 12 months, it has had to deal with floods and the effect of foot and mouth in the area. It has had to prepare for the possibility of plane crashes, terrorist threats and, most recently, it has had to consider how it might handle possible anthrax or chemical attacks. My constituency is particularly vulnerable because it has a significant Ministry of Defence presence, although it receives no additional money for that.
	Out of that £125,000, £98,000 goes on salaries. The remaining budget, to be spent on training, high-tech communications, IT equipment, emergency planning preparation, community schemes—including public meetings and community education—is a mere £27,000. Because of everything that has happened, the demands placed on the unit are at an all-time high.
	The Minister mentioned training in the list of items for which the unit should have responsibility. Out of this huge amount of £27,000, my local unit is allocated £1,300 for training. Like all the other units, the only specialist training it can get is in north Yorkshire, and although the cost of that is subsidised, more than £1,000 would have to be provided for two members of staff to go on training courses. That now leaves only £300 to pay for the Virgin train fares and nothing for other courses during the rest of the year.
	The unit and all units are expected to have high- standard communications equipment. Until recently, the Government advised my unit to invest in the Dolphin project for its communication system. It spent a lot of money but, unfortunately, the Dolphin system went bust. The unit, like other units, is now being advised to make arrangements to link into the police and the Home Office's airwaves project. That will cost £10,000 of the unit's money but, given the budget that I have just described, it does not have £10,000. Therefore, it cannot link into that huge communications system.
	I have given a number of examples that show that the current level of funding is totally inadequate for the range of activities for which a unit, such as the one run by my local council, is responsible. The Government recently advised it to try to get involved in a business continuity scheme to enable local economies to weather the storm of an emergency, but it cannot afford to do that. It wants to set up a flood warden scheme so that local people can advise other local people about floods. It also wants to set up other schemes, but it simply does not have the money to do so.
	Funding is a big issue for the unit in my area and for others throughout the country. That is why so many people have raised so many times the issue of the sums of money to be made available. They desperately want a much clearer answer from the Minister than we have heard so far.
	The Minister is right to say that the current arrangements are based on the Civil Defence Act 1948 and the amendments to it that have followed. As he acknowledged, the Act is obsolete and new legislation is desperately needed to put civil defence on to a footing fit for the 21st century. However, I was somewhat surprised by what he said about how the planning for the future was going. In December 2000, following the Leeds castle meeting, we were told that there would be a review of civil defence legislation. However, he has told us today that the consultation did not begin until August this year, with the consultation period ending in October. Will he explain why there was such a long delay between the promise made in December 2000 and the start of the consultation in August? Perhaps more importantly, when might we expect new legislation to be introduced? He merely told us today that that depends on when priorities will allow.
	In the meantime, many things could be done that do not require further legislation. Since 11 September, a great deal of information has been sent by a variety of civil servants to civil defence units around the country. The units have received information from the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, health authorities, Government offices of the regions and many others. Clearly, in many cases, that information is welcome, but I hope that the Minister is aware that complaints are often made that the information provided by the different organisations has been contradictory. There is, therefore, a need for much greater co-ordination of the communication between the Departments and the units.
	I understand that that point was raised with the Minister when he met representatives of the Local Government Association on 15 September. I am told that at that meeting he undertook to find ways of improving the means of communication between Departments and local councils. Perhaps he can confirm that the Government intend to do that, because that would be of great interest to local councils.
	According to the minutes of that meeting provided by the LGA, I note that, when the Bill was discussed, the Minister undertook to
	"Reconsider the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill currently before Parliament."
	I know that the LGA raised a number of points with him. However, as the Bill remains in exactly the same form as it was when it first appeared in June, it is clear that he has not decided to make any changes. I hope that he can explain why.
	In the Minister's response to the many questions about finance, he has stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that the Bill is not about the amount of money involved, but about establishing a formula for the distribution of grants to the various bodies. I understand entirely that that is the Bill's purpose. However, if that is what it is meant to be about, I fail to understand why, as clause 1 makes clear, the new section 3(3) of the 1948 Act will state:
	"The designated Minister—
	(a) may use different formulae or other criteria in making determinations for different authorities".
	Surely that means that the Bill is not about creating a formula but about creating several different formulae at the whim of the designated Minister. If the Minister so chooses, he can say to a particular authority that the formula is such that it will receive no money whatever. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government believe it is necessary to have a system with different formulae that gives huge discretion to, at the moment, the Home Secretary.

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman is on to an extremely important point. In response to the Minister's point about trying to provide certainty for local authorities, he will notice that the new section 3B says that the grant should
	"be paid in such manner and at such times as the designated Minister determines . . . a grant for a financial year need not be paid in that year".
	It could even be paid in instalments. How on earth that is supposed to help the long-term financial planning of local authorities escapes me.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman must have good eyesight, because he has read the next part of my speech. I was about to make that very point. Not only is the Home Secretary able to use as many different formulae as he wants, but he will have the power to pay whatever money the formulae decide is appropriate whenever he chooses. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that hardly helps local authorities to plan their activities efficiently.

Christopher Leslie: Now that we are dealing with the provisions of the Bill itself it is important to reiterate what I said about how the establishment of the formula replicates—but not exactly—provisions in other standard local government grant arrangements. The provision is simply a form of words that exists in other local government finance legislation. It will give Ministers the flexibility to examine specific projects or initiatives in an area that might have a long-standing emergency planning need. That is why we need the powers that currently do not exist in statute.

Don Foster: I had hoped that the Minister would have explained the need for a range of different formulae. However, his answer is largely to say that that is what has always been done. That does not necessarily make it right.
	The Minister referred to specific projects that the Government might want to fund, but he has already told us that they provide vast sums of money to fund such projects outside the normal planning process. There is a mechanism for that, so we have not had a clear explanation as to why that particular provision is in the Bill.
	I also hope that the Minister will turn his attention to when the funding is to be paid. Although I entirely accept that the Bill seeks to resolve a technical problem that resulted from the challenge mounted by the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority, I genuinely fear that it could create more problems than it will solve. It will certainly create considerable uncertainty about how the funding will be calculated and when it will be paid. As we have said, there are real fears that it could lead to cuts in funding for civil defence at the very time when its importance has been brought home to us by the appalling events of 11 September.
	As I bring my remarks to a close, it is appropriate that I should include the words of the manager of my council's civil defence planning unit who said to me only the other day:
	"Over the past 10 years, these services have been trimming the fat from the bone—but now that the bones themselves have been diagnosed with osteoporosis, we really do need emergency treatment".
	That opinion will be echoed by many emergency planning officers around the country. The Government need to provide more than technical legislation to sort out the mess that they are in. We need a clear commitment on the security of funding and the level of funding for this vital service.

Geraint Davies: It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said that he opposes the Bill because it is irrelevant, inappropriate and penny-pinching, because we are just beginning to understand its basis. In essence, it provides a rational mechanism for delivering money. It is not about setting the grant itself. It is important to make that clear, irrespective of what was said in a press release dated, I think, 22 June, because that cannot be set in the context of post-11 September and the atrocity on that day.
	I am a former leader of London's largest authority, which was responsible for budgets, including the civil defence grant. I am also a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which is dedicated to ensuring that public expenditure delivers value for money. From the view of the customer, in terms of budget management and projection, and the taxpayer, in terms of delivering value for money, the Bill is appropriate and necessary.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) did not mention this, but the legislation will be superseded in a wider context within the next couple of years. [Interruption.] I will come back to that if there is a problem with it.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is more illuminating than the Minister. He told us that he is confident that the budget figures will increase and, despite what the Minister said, he now tells us that new legislation will be introduced within two years. I would be grateful to know his source of information.

Geraint Davies: It is known that the Government intend to introduce emergency planning legislation because the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned it for something like 2003 or 2004. That information is in the public arena. As I understand it, we are moving quickly to ensure that we do not have a blank-cheque approach in the aftermath of the Merseyside decision. Prior to that, and since the Civil Defence Act 1948, decisions were made on a reasonably even basis. Since the Merseyside decision, the Government have been open to a certain amount of financial exposure. Instead of future grants being determined by a rational formula, they could be decided arbitrarily. That is not in the interests of the taxpayer or, indeed, of local authorities, which need certainty when they plan for emergencies.
	There is a need to act quickly. The Government are doing that. It is important that the overall budgets, which vary between £14 million and £19 million, are set in the wider context. That is not a large sum considering the total expenditure that is put aside for responses to disasters by the police, the fire service, ambulances and so on, which is provided through the Bellwin scheme. Hon. Members referred to the clarity of the formula and executive management, but the Minister made it clear that that is within the wider remit of the Home Secretary, who chairs the Cabinet Civil Contingencies Committee.
	It is important that the level of grant is decided rationally and that it is appropriate for current circumstances. It is also appropriate to protect taxpayers. There must be accountability and the money's use needs to be rationally explained. The grant allocating method should be brought into line with all other Government grant allocating methods. It is the only grant from Government expenditure that is not formula-driven, and that anomaly needs to be sorted out.
	We need to update the 1948 Act, which was introduced to deal with hostile attacks from abroad. I appreciate that the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986 extended local authority responsibilities from wartime planning to peacetime planning for flooding, train crashes, plane crashes, chemicals and so on. In the light of other events that have occurred, such as the flooding in 2000, the fuel crisis and foot and mouth, the legislation is overdue for amendment, especially because of the Merseyside decision.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is making a constructive speech, but does he believe that true need will be met by the legislation, or is an expectation being built up that may not materialise in the grant?

Geraint Davies: I believe that true need will be addressed. The alternative is to do nothing and face the uncertainty of a blank-cheque situation. If that happens, we will not know how much money will be spent or where it will be spent. It is important to have a rational basis that is flexible and targets money appropriately to the areas of need.
	The grants will be cash-limited and formula-driven, but there will be opportunities for project-based financing. There is also an option for Ministers to exercise discretion. Although we can plan rationally for various scenarios, we must consider that the nature of disaster and terrorism is uncertainty, and the planning system might have different configurations for different places. For instance, the needs of London are different from those of other towns, cities and villages.
	The formula offers an opportunity for rational targeting, formula-driven, project-based funding and some discretion. Alongside that, I am pleased that there is a chance to have a service level agreement to ensure that consistent and growing standards of service delivery are met. In the past, we did not have the quality assurance or the means to ensure that we got the output that the public require and the value for money that we demand.
	I am pleased to support the Bill. From the local government point of view, the Government clearly intend to consult the Local Government Association further. Some authorities might have irrationally overspent and not be delivering high-quality services. That will be addressed. In time, the wider needs of the legislation will be a consideration. Basically, the Bill offers an opportunity to deliver the level and quality of service that we need for emergency planning and to provide value for money for the taxpayer.

Peter Luff: Civil defence is something that we all hope that we never need, but we understand that if we do, it must work, and work well. Certainly New York's emergency services worked well in the aftermath of 11 September, and I join the Minister in paying tribute to all those who work in the British blue light emergency services. We are well served, and sometimes we take them too much for granted.
	People who are called to emergencies are contemporary heroes, but their heroism will work only if there is proper co-ordination behind the scenes to ensure that their services are delivered in the right way at the right time and are the right response to particular circumstances. That is why the Bill is so important.
	The Bill is an emergency response to an uncontested court action, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said. I do not much like it. I am not saying that cash limiting is wrong—quite the opposite—but when one is considering how to restructure the funding for any national or local government service, it must be done against an intellectually consistent and honest background.
	The Government are reviewing all such legislation and that will provide an intellectually honest and coherent background for a proper review of the financial arrangements that support it, and that is the right way to proceed. One should start with the intellectual analysis, and move on to finance, rather than the knee-jerk reaction of rushing through a Bill whose only effect, as my hon. Friend said, will be to cut the expenditure available for co-ordination at a crucial time in our nation's history.
	There are two reasons for opposing the Bill: the fact that the legislation is being reviewed and the fact that the world has become a more dangerous and uncertain place since the Bill was published. We all know that the origins of civil defence lie in concerns about the cold war, but our enemies are now more complex, subtle, sophisticated and, indeed, numerous. Foot and mouth disease is but the latest. We must also deal with flooding, which I shall discuss in detail later.
	There are long-standing hazards resulting from industrial processes. I have three tier 1 COMAH—control of major accident hazard—sites in or near my constituency that cause the emergency planning authorities of Worcestershire a great deal of concern. The sites are well managed, but the authorities need to keep a careful eye on them and plan properly for responses to anything that may happen. Of course, there is also the question of the post- 11 September world, which has featured heavily in speeches so far. Far from getting better, the civil defence front is getting worse and more complex. Hon. Members have mentioned the fuel crisis, and there was the millennium bug. Who knows what scientific disaster we will have to confront next?
	My hon. Friend spoke about the hundreds of billions of dollars voted by Congress for civil defence purposes in the United States. I was struck by the fact that, while we have cut £10 million from civil defence expenditure for the understandable reasons that have been set out, the national Federal Emergency Management Agency in the United States co-ordinates emergency responses to natural or man-made disasters with an annual budget of $300 million. It has access to contingency funds of $2 billion, 2,900 staff and more than 4,000 reservists. That is a sign that that country takes civil defence seriously.
	We know that we need fundamental change, and the review has rightly begun. I cannot remember who launched it, because I am so confused about where responsibility for the subject lies, but someone in the Government deserves credit for doing so in August, before the events of 11 September heightened the need to act. I am delighted that the Government say in the discussion document on which we were invited to comment by the end of last month that greater consistency is needed in the delivery of emergency planning. They are considering precisely the legislative changes that, in principle, the House should welcome.
	I am also delighted that the Government are seeking views on funding arrangements, proposing that civil defence arrangements should be supported through the standard spending assessment alongside other locally delivered services, rather than being put in a special pigeonhole. That may be a sensible way to proceed. I understand that the responses to the document have been very favourable, giving the Government a clear mandate and consensus on which to proceed. All that is very encouraging, so why this grubby little Bill now?
	The chief emergency planning officers of the west midlands region discussed the Bill at one of their regular liaison meetings. Not one of them felt that it was needed, especially in view of the review of legislation, so what does it do? As my hon. Friend said, it cuts expenditure, but it does so highly capriciously. The explanatory note is a model of obscurantism, and just the sort of explanatory note that, we are learning, is a non- explanatory note. Let me offer my own version:
	"This Bill gives the designated Minister the power to vary the Civil Defence Grant, payable to grant receiving Local Authorities on an annual basis, at will. Under its provisions, he will be enabled to use different criteria in determining the amount of grant to be paid to different authorities across the country.
	Further, the grant could be held back and not paid for an indefinite number of years after that to which the grant applies. In the intervening period, the amount previously determined could retrospectively be altered.
	In order to ensure almost complete uncertainty for local authorities, he will be given the power to decide arbitrarily that the grant payable to any particular authority will be reduced to zero from the original determination and this could be announced at any time, even after the grant period has started, leaving local authorities without any resource to carry out their Civil Defence functions."

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Peter Luff: I think that I know what the Minister is going to say, but I will let him say it anyway.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is trying his best to provoke me. I genuinely do not wish to make a party political point, because I understand that, at some point in the past, the Conservative party had a principle of sound financial management. The Bill's purpose is not to set the grant but to impose a formula system, like that for all other local government funding arrangements, to ensure that we can plan strategically nationwide. Does he support that?

Peter Luff: I am glad that I did not anticipate the Minister's intervention, because I thought that he would ask a much more difficult question. The Bill's financial effects are set out in the explanatory note; the formulae lead to the conclusion that money will flow to local authorities. He is dancing on the head of a pin. His argument has some intellectual respectability, but I am afraid that, politically, it does not engage me at all, which I find disappointing.
	The Minister was really saying that he could give Worcestershire a certain sum and the council could budget for it, but he could sit on it for months or even years and then decide not to pay. So much for the certainty to which he referred in his opening remarks. So what if the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) ran a local authority? Judging from his remarks and considering the effect that I think that the Bill will have on local authorities, he has gone native now. I hope that the Minister finds my suggested explanatory note helpful; perhaps he will consider revising the Government's version when the Bill goes to the other place.
	I am glad that we have heard a lot about flooding, which is one issue that gives the matter such great urgency and importance. I declare an interest in two senses: I was Chairman of the Agriculture Committee when it produced its July 1998 report, just three months after my constituency suffered catastrophic flooding. We began the inquiry before the floods, and they occurred during it. We talked about confusion of departmental responsibilities, and when the floods in my constituency occurred, at Easter 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, turned up to see what was going on. He then discovered that he should not have been there, because the matter was the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but we were glad to see him during an exceptionally serious event for my constituency.
	In April 1998, Wychavon district council experienced serious flooding in 60 of the 91 parishes in its area, one of my constituents died and many came very close to dying. I have in mind the experience of one of my constituents who lives near what is normally a harmless bubbling brook, Bow brook, and who had to swim through 6 ft of diluted sewage to get from his garage to his front door. He nearly died in the process, and it was a terrifying experience.
	The Agriculture Committee report of three years ago still bears careful reading. I re-read it today, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale may have been on the Committee.

Tim Collins: indicated assent

Peter Luff: Indeed. The report was so radical that the Daily Express splashed, if that is the right metaphor, across its front page the headline, "Let Britain Sink Say MPs". That was not quite what we had in mind, but it certainly made people read the report. It highlighted the dangers of the increased flooding risk in the United Kingdom, often in very dramatic terms.
	Those dangers arise from a range of factors: the Government's plan to build lots of new houses on flood plains, climate change and the fact that the nation is tipping slowly into the English channel, which I believe is called geomorphic tilt. That means that huge numbers of our population are at increased risk of flooding, so civil defence becomes much more important.
	I know that for two-tier authorities such as mine, most of the practical burden of dealing with flooding falls on district councils, not the county councils, which are the authorities for the purposes of the Bill. I pay tribute to the staff of Wychavon district council who did so much three years ago. They gave up their Easter break and worked tirelessly to run welfare centres, open rest centres, clean up the mess, arrange for dehumidifiers, certify whether food was fit for human consumption, examine the structural stability of buildings, check electricity supplies—particularly in touring caravan parks—deal with fallen trees and so on.
	As Carl Craney, the head of housing and engineering services at Wychavon, told me today:
	"In emergencies like these, district councils rely on the good will of the staff that they do little or nothing to deserve."
	Certainly, district councils are not rewarded by the Government for the work that they do to plan for emergencies—that function is reserved for the county council. We owe it to counties such as mine that have suffered so disastrously to ensure that flooding arrangements are properly co-ordinated.
	The county council produced a report. I was not sure about that, as I thought that perhaps the district council should do so, but never mind. It dealt with a flooding emergency in my county last year, asking,
	"What can be done to minimise the future impact of floods?"
	The first recommendation was
	"Do not cut Home Office grant for emergency planning."
	It was made by the then Liberal and Labour-controlled council, but it seems that the Government are ignoring it.
	Apart from flooding, I want to mention other regular issues that are now of increasing concern. I talked about my tier 1 COMAH sites, which need to be properly controlled and monitored. Proper rehearsals should be held for the kind of eventualities that we might face. To give the House an idea of the kind of site that I am talking about, I should add that I am delighted to have Royal Ordnance at Summerfield in my constituency. It makes rocket motors for a wide range of defence purposes. It is bidding for a new contract—I was lobbied by it only today—and I hope that it gets it. Rocket motors are dangerous things. Huge amounts of explosive and inflammable material are held at the site. It is important that my county has the resources to ensure that such issues are properly addressed.
	I had thought that I might talk at length about terrorism, but as others have done so, I merely note that all kinds of new terrorist and broader microbiological risks emerge daily. We have talked about foot and mouth disease, but what other microbiological hazards are evolving to confront us? What new microbiological hazards are being planned by those who do not like our lifestyle or approach, or bear some bizarre grudge against western society? We do not know. The need for emergency planning does not diminish but grows.
	I asked my local authority what it thought about the Bill, and I say to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central that this is what Worcestershire county council said. It said that it finds
	"the provisions of this Bill to be draconian and totally unnecessary. The Cabinet Office is currently carrying out a fundamental review of Emergency Planning, with a view that an Emergency Planning Bill shall be introduced before or during 2003, when this Bill"—
	the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill—
	"would come into force. It is anticipated that the Civil Protection Bill will impose a statutory duty on all local authorities for emergency planning and that this will probably bring about a change in the way that this service is funded.
	It appears on the surface that it would be far more logical to leave the current arrangements in place and incorporate this Bill within the provisions of the proposed Emergency Planning Bill, which at most on the current timescales proposed would only extend the current arrangements for one financial year."

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend spoke at length about flooding. Does he accept that as well as local authorities—the Bill relates to local authority grants—public utilities should be involved in seeking to create a policy to prevent flooding? At the moment, they cannot take the action that they want to take owing to shortage of money. The village of Eaton in my constituency suffered severe flood damage and danger to health from sewage. Such issues are involved in this debate.

Peter Luff: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, as I always am. He makes a powerful point. There is a desperate need to overhaul and reform the structure of flooding policy, which is bewildering and confusing to us all. An earlier Select Committee report found some 240 different authorities and agencies involved in one way or another with flooding issues. The classic division is between the Environment Agency, district councils, county councils and water companies. There is a need to ensure proper co-ordination. That makes the provisions of the Bill so much sadder for me. I am sorry that the Minister has fallen for the line sold by others. I hope that he will listen to the wise words of Worcestershire county council and even at this late stage withdraw the Bill and reintroduce it later as part of a more comprehensive solution to the problems that we face.

Tom Brake: I shall be brief. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chairman of the National Council for Civil Protection, and a personal interest as my wife works for Sutton council and is one of its emergency planning officers.
	The NCCP is an advisory or pressure group that is extremely active in promoting emergency planning best practice. Its members are principally drawn from the emergency planing community in local authorities. It has met representatives of the Home Office to discuss these matters on a fairly regular basis.
	I shall not go into whether the Government are intending to downsize the sum of money that can be allocated to emergency planning from £19 million to £14 million because I know that the Minister would intervene to point out that the Bill is about not a formula but drawing up a system of formulae. That is rather hard to pin down. What is clear, however, is that local authorities are not in a position to plan properly. They are having to set budgets without knowing exactly where they stand.
	It is worth pointing out some of the risk associated with any downsizing of funding allocated for emergency planning. Hertfordshire council has received additional moneys that have been used to identify the homes in which elderly people live—and specifically those on flood plains—and to confirm whether such homes have adequate emergency plans in place should flooding occur. I understand that such projects would be at risk if the money allocated was reduced to £14 million.
	I also understand that the Government have issued guidance saying that, as well as normal arrangements for emergency planning, local authorities should be putting together a central Government advisory team, which is supposed to consider terrorism and hostage scenarios. They are also supposed to be drawing up a joint health advisory cell to consider chemical and biological threats. Such systems are obviously not in place currently and will require officer time—that is what emergency planning is mainly about—to implement them and ensure that they work. Again, if the sums of money are reduced, such systems will probably not be implemented.
	The Minister said that he cannot predict the legislative timetable. I wish that he was as successful at doing so as the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). Will the Minister at least give an assurance that he will personally make the matter top priority and fight for legislative time to be made available for such a Bill? Given the different crises in the past few years—whether it be the fuel crisis, foot and mouth, terrorist threats or flooding—such a Bill is clearly a top priority.
	Does the Minister expect—preferably before but possibly after a review and consideration of the legislative programme—a mechanism to emerge to ensure the wider promotion of best practice in emergency planning? Members have referred to some of the omissions from the website. From talking to people in emergency planning, I understand that the content is very limited and that much more must be done about promoting best practice. Rather than simply telling local authorities that, for example, they should be reviewing their arrangements for mortuaries and how to go about decontaminating bodies if necessary, the Government should provide some best practice advice on such matters. That would mean that each authority would not then draw up an individual plan, even though someone somewhere had already done the work.
	As the Minister has said, the Bill is specifically about the system of formulae to be implemented. I hope that there will very soon be an opportunity to return to the subject in order to deal with emergency planning in a much wider sense.

Mark Francois: I begin by apologising to the Minister for missing the first few minutes of his opening speech. I serve on a Select Committee, and even with all the modern technology of the 21st century, one cannot be in two places at once. I came hot foot to the debate, but missed the first couple of minutes. I served for seven years in the Territorial Army, including in a home defence role, and I shall bring a little of that experience to bear on the debate. I shall directly address the Bill later, but begin by putting the debate into an historical perspective.
	The emphasis on civil defence has broadly been declining since the second world war, at the end of which Britain had formulated a highly efficient civil defence system. During the battle of Britain, the courage of pilots in the air was matched by that of those serving in the civil defence network on the ground in units such as the Auxiliary Fire Service and the Royal Observer Corps. Without such people the effective defence of the UK from attack would not have been possible. Even to this day, we continue to owe them a great debt for helping to defend freedom.
	With the advent of the cold war the emphasis in civil defence planning changed, in particular to reflect the new nuclear era. Considerable effort was expended on adjusting civil defence planning to cope with the prospect of nuclear attack on the UK by the Soviet Union. A series of emergency bunkers was created and both national and local government officials trained for the eventuality, however difficult it might have been to contemplate. It transpired that the democratic west won the cold war and helped to bring freedom to eastern Europe, as well as to Russia itself to some extent. All those who were part of that apparatus played an important role, in their own discreet way, in that most welcome extension of democracy.
	I pay tribute in particular to the members of the Royal Observer Corps. For many years, ROC volunteers trained to help Britain to deal with aerial and ultimately nuclear attack. Those who served in the ROC were highly trained to deal with perhaps the worst of all imaginable events: a nuclear attack on their country. From their series of posts and bunkers around the country, they would have been responsible for plotting the nature and extent of any such attack and informing the Government of the extent of the damage. They trained for all that in the knowledge that they might have to continue to operate even after their own families had become casualties.
	Thankfully, with the end of the cold war the possibility of such an all-out assault receded. The corps was disbanded as a result. It is always difficult for members of a unit or organisation who have worn their uniform with pride, as the volunteers of the ROC certainly did, to accept the order to stand down. However, they have the satisfaction of having done an important job quietly and thoroughly. The ROC performed a valuable service for this country for many years and I pay tribute to its members.
	The end of the cold war did not necessarily entail the end of all threats to the security of the UK—far from it—but that point was not fully appreciated by the new Government in 1997. The 1997–98 strategic defence review had important implications for civil defence planning in the UK. It switched Britain's planning assumptions towards a largely expeditionary strategy: the concept was one of greater flexibility and mobility and the ability to project forces to trouble spots around the globe. As the then Secretary of State for Defence George, now Lord, Robertson put it at the time,
	"If the war is no longer going to come to us then we may have to go to the war."
	That had implications for resource allocation and the switch towards expeditionary warfare was made at the expense of home defence, including civil defence. Not only was the Territorial Army severely cut, which I believe was a great mistake because the TA has great potential in times of domestic emergency, but the civil defence infrastructure was further run down, to the point where many professionals working in the field were becoming increasingly alarmed and, at the same time, demoralised by the low priority that the Government appeared to attach to their work. It is that overall trend of running down domestic defences that provides the background to the Bill.
	When professionals in the field began to protest about the low priority given to their work, some accused them of crying wolf. The atmosphere was almost such that people voicing concerns and asking questions about civil defence in a post-cold war world were regarded as alarmist. That led to the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority feeling obliged to take the Government to court for failing to meet their statutory obligations. The Government declined to contest the case, and that led to the introduction of the Bill. It is important that our debate is seen in that context.
	All that took place before 11 September. Since then, there has been a great deal of discussion about the possibility of so-called asymmetric attack on the UK by terrorist groups of the type whose actions people in the United States have had to suffer. In the debate on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill a few days ago, Ministers took pains to argue that the UK faced a genuine national emergency,
	"threatening the life of the nation"
	as a result of events in the United States, and that the serious risk justified our derogation from certain aspects of the European convention on human rights that were inconsistent with some of the measures in that Bill.
	It is utterly inconsistent for one set of Ministers to argue in the House that the UK faces a genuine domestic emergency, and other Ministers to argue a few days later for legislative powers to reduce spending on civil defence. Either we face such a threat or we do not. We should allocate our resources, including funding for civil defence, accordingly. I happen to believe that more must be spent in that respect, so I deprecate the spirit of the Bill, which would facilitate precisely the opposite.

Andrew Miller: Nonsense.

Mark Francois: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Bill. New section 3B(4), on payment, states:
	"An authority shall repay to the designated Minister any sum which . . . exceeds the amount to which the authority is entitled under that section for that year (whether or not by virtue of a varying determination under section 3(3)(b))."
	If the Bill is designed to enhance the resources given to civil defence, why is it necessary for the Government to include a clawback provision? No Labour Member has defended that point so far.
	This country has survived many threats to its security down the centuries. Now, we face a new and in many ways more invidious threat than we have faced hitherto. We need to guard against the threat of terrorism and asymmetric warfare, just as we have guarded against all other threats. That means spending more on civil defence, not less. When the total allocated to local authorities for civil defence last year—£20 million—is around half the cost of a single Eurofighter aircraft, we have got the balance of our planning wrong.
	The first duty of Government, above all others, is defence of the realm. We forget that at our peril. From what I have heard today, I believe that we are in real danger of forgetting that tonight.

Tim Collins: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We have had a useful and constructive debate. If the Minister is unable to deal with all the points raised now, perhaps he will write to those who have spoken.
	The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made an extremely important point about the need to clarify what different siren sounds mean. He was entirely right to draw that to the House's attention. I also strongly endorse his comments on the importance of no-flying zones. He will understand why the matter is of no small concern to my constituents, one of whom recently pointed out to me, using a somewhat morbid phrase, that his home at Windermere was only 25 miles "as the radiation flies" from Sellafield. Greater clarification would be appreciated, although I should say that the measures already taken by the Government in that respect are most welcome.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) all paid important tributes to emergency planning officers, which I am sure will be supported by all hon. Members on both sides of the House. We should applaud the officers' work.
	The hon. Member for Bath was entirely right when he said that we all accept that legislation of some sort to deal with funding matters in this context is needed at some stage, but as he said, the Government's timing is dreadful. He said that he looks forward to introducing amendments when the Bill is considered in Committee to delay its effect. He will have the support of the official Opposition in doing so, and perhaps we can work together on that. I look forward to that because his party and mine have recently taken joint control of Cumbria county council, and are doing a great deal better there than the previous Labour local authority.
	The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) made, perhaps unintentionally, a slightly entertaining speech. He tried to argue that the Government were not about to cut civil defence funding. For the Minister's benefit, he went on to announce that new legislation would be brought forward in the next two years. The Minister was a little less certain than the hon. Gentleman about that. However, it was an interesting contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire rightly said that heroism works only when there is proper co-ordination behind the scenes. I am sure that he is right to say that it would have made a great deal more sense to address finances as part of an overall framework of legislative reform, and not on their own. I am sure that he was right to pay tribute to the work of his local district council. I was taken by the quote that he provided from Worcestershire county council, which described the proposed legislation as draconian and entirely unnecessary.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a typically constructive contribution. He spoke of the need for utilities to be brought within a proper legislative framework. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who is a great expert on these matters as the chairman of the National Council for Civil Protection, made a helpful and positive contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, whose expertise in these matters as a former member of the Territorial Army is important, was right to pay tribute to the work of the Royal Observer Corps. His tribute was entirely appropriate and well informed, and it should be endorsed by everyone in the House who loves freedom. It was interesting that he referred to the words of Lord Robertson, who said some years ago that the war would no longer come to us. Sadly for the citizens of New York, it came to them. That must influence the way in which we approach these matters.
	The Opposition genuinely believe that the Government have got this one wrong. It is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. It is a misguided response at a time of national emergency, to use the Home Secretary's words. That is why we shall be voting against the Bill. We ask the Government to reconsider the measure.

Christopher Leslie: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I want to respond to what has been a brief but constructive debate. It has allowed the Government to explain—I hope that it will not be necessary to do so more frequently—that the Bill is about enabling the Government to set a formula for the allocation of grant, and not the actual level of spending.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), in opening and responding to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, mentioned the great work of the emergency services and others. Indeed, he complimented the Government's handling of events post-11 September. I welcome those remarks. I am sorry that he has concluded that he will actively oppose the Bill. It seems that he is opposing a national strategic approach to emergency planning funding, which is extremely regrettable. The Government want a planned and fair distribution of grant. The hon. Gentleman appears not to want that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made a number of legitimate suggestions for improving public protection. He referred to the demise of the old warning sirens that were in place in the cold war era. I know that the Government are reviewing the adequacy of public warning systems and I hope that announcements will be made on that. My hon. Friend talked about no-fly zones around sensitive sites. He will be aware that following discussions in another place, the Departments involved will be taking up a number of his suggestions. He has given much attention to the Bill and has scrutinised it, and I value enormously his contribution.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) also paid tribute to the work of local emergency planning officers and others. He gave examples of work that is undertaken in his local authority area and the issues that are faced. He talked about demands on budgets, the need for training and the wish to see better communication systems. We need to reinstitute the ability to allocate a formula that is based on a series of criteria on a range of issues. We need legal authority to do that, and that is precisely what the Bill is designed to achieve.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) has much experience as a former leader of his local council and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. He understands entirely the need for the rational allocation of grant. He correctly summarised the Bill's provisions.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) raised a number of questions, in particular the flooding in the Wychavon area. He also referred to one possible cause of his geomorphic tilt, which I feel I may be suffering from at this time of the evening. Civil defence grant covers only the funding for local emergency planning units; it does not cover responses to floods. I understand that the budget is rising from £66 million for the financial year 2000–01 to £114 million in the financial year 2003–04. There is an increase in the amount that we are allocating to flood prevention. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned issues surrounding the control of major accident hazard sites. These are being reviewed by the Cabinet's Civil Contingencies Committee.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has a great deal of knowledge about civil contingencies and emergency planning. I welcome his contribution. He specifically urged the Government to bring forward wider emergency planning legislation as soon as possible. The truth is that we are still learning many lessons, particularly after the events of 11 September. We intend to bring forward a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. We must ensure that we are covering all the relevant issues in such legislation.
	The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) made an interesting speech. He paid tribute to the Royal Observer Corps and the Territorial Army. He discussed the end of the cold war. I disagree with his conclusions about the Bill, but I understand the experience from which he speaks.
	Several Members talked about the level of funding, especially those who spoke from the Front Benches. The issue of reprofiling spending has arisen throughout the debate. I am learning at all times. The Bill does not set the budget for civil defence grant, but it enables Ministers to do so. Ministers have yet to set the 2002–03 financial year resource. The question this evening is whether we should have a formula for allocating such grant.
	We accept that we should reconsider financing for local authority emergency planning units. That is why we have the emergency planning review. Discussions are continuing, especially following the events of 11 September, in respect of the next comprehensive spending review. We will be considering all the representations that we are receiving from local authorities. The Local Government Association, in particular, has made representations, and we are trying to build on our continuing dialogue and regular communications with it. Its representations will be taken into account as far as possible. We are actively investigating the question of a formula based on the standard spending assessment.
	To revisit the point about the Civil Contingencies Committee, it is chaired by the Home Secretary, although the civil contingencies secretariat is based in the Cabinet Office. It is clear, to me at least, where those organisations sit; I hope that that helps to clarify the matter for the House.
	While the Government intend to consider new legislation on a range of civil contingency issues, this short Bill is required in the interim to re-establish a national strategic approach to civil defence grant allocation. The Government are concerned that, following the legal challenge, the costs of assessing the individual claims of each authority's bid to check whether they are reasonable is both disproportionate and burdensome, given the total size of the budget. A formula allocation is easier and more cost-efficient in administrative terms. Moreover, a system led by authority demand would fail to take account of the need for prioritisation and fairness across the country as a whole, so the Bill is needed now to reassert the importance of a comprehensive and planned nationwide emergency planning framework.
	The hon. Member for Bath, among others, mentioned the need for a fundamental re-examination of civil contingencies work, which is currently under way in the emergency planning review and will address many specific representations on the level of grant and how best it should be allocated. The review specifically asked for comments on whether funding for local authorities should be made through the SSA. In the meantime, the basic building block of statute law is needed to give the Government the ability to implement the existing scheme and any new schemes.
	There can be no doubt that the events of 11 September have caused significant anxiety across the world and in our own communities. Part of the process of ameliorating that concern is the demonstration that, as a society, we are well placed to cope with whatever emergencies may arise. The Bill reflects a mere fraction of the work required to tighten up our national resilience framework, but it is important nevertheless. It is a necessary tool in the delivery of effective emergency planning co-ordination across the country, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 159.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

CIVIL DEFENCE (GRANT) [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of grants made by a Minister of the Crown to authorities with functions under section 2 of the Civil Defence Act 1948, and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Rehabilitation of Offenders

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 19th November, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Legal Services Commission

That the draft Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Income Tax

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Lithuania) Order 2001 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th November.—[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Income Tax

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) Order 2001 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th November.—[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Nurses and Midwives

That the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
	The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 152.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Health Professions

That the draft Health Professions Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 113.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation etc. orders),

Regulatory Reform

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.

FOOT AND MOUTH (TATTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]

George Osborne: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the ongoing hardship and distress that the aftermath of foot and mouth disease continues to cause to so many of the people I represent. I make no apologies for choosing a narrow subject tonight—the impact of the disease in my constituency—although if I had known that I would have an hour and 24 minutes to talk about the impact of FMD, I might have broadened the scope of the debate to allow more of my hon. Friends to join in the debate. However, I would welcome any contributions that they might wish to make.
	The issues that I shall raise affect all rural constituencies, both those that were particularly badly hit in Devon and Cumbria and those that never had a case of FMD. Tatton was not the worst affected area, but it did suffer from the effects of FMD. The first outbreak occurred at Little Leigh in the west of the constituency on 25 March. Outbreaks at Over Peover and Sproston followed, and the last outbreak was identified at Crowley on 29 May. During those two months, there were seven confirmed cases in the Tatton constituency, out of a total of 17 cases in Cheshire. I should say that I checked the Department website today and it listed only 16 cases, but I am reliably informed by the county council that the correct figure is 17. My constituency had the largest number of any one of the county's constituencies.
	Given that I have a little more time to cover the issues, I shall briefly break—as I willingly concede—the agreement I made with the Minister's private secretary a couple of days ago and touch on some of the issues surrounding the Government's handling of the disease, although I hope to do so in a non-partisan spirit. I certainly do not wish to repeat the extremely heated exchanges that I read about between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in the debate in Westminster Hall some days ago.
	The issues that I hope any inquiry—I shall deal later with the question of a public inquiry—will cover include the Government's immediate reaction to the outbreak in the first few days of receiving news of the disease. We need to know how those crucial hours were handled by Government Ministers. We need to know whether those three days in which livestock movements were allowed to continue were crucial to the spread of the disease. I hope that the inquiries will also examine the epidemiological evidence that might show that the outbreak would have been much smaller—as some have suggested—if the Government had imposed movement restrictions immediately, rather than waiting for those crucial three days.
	I hope also that the inquiries, when they are conducted, will look at the way in which animals were disposed of. There is great concern in farming communities that the large funeral pyres used at the beginning of the outbreak contributed to the spread of the disease. It was felt that thermal currents from large pyres spread the virus over large areas.
	Moreover, there is concern in my constituency, especially in the western part, about the way in which the animals were transported by road through uninfected areas. The first outbreak in my constituency was very close to one of the main A roads used for the transport of a large number of animal carcases to the rendering plants near Runcorn. I hope that the inquiries will also consider that issue.
	I hope, too, that the inquiries will consider whether the Government need to adopt the draconian new powers proposed in the Animal Health Bill. There is little understanding in farming circles of why the Government believe that they have to act in that way now, when the great many other matters arising out of the foot and mouth outbreak will not be attended to until lengthy inquiries have been conducted.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which will be rather longer than he expected, in prime time. Was there any evidence in his constituency of the Department's officials breaking their own very strict biosecurity rules and entering clean premises after working at infected ones?

George Osborne: There were no such cases in my constituency. We were lucky, if that is the right word, in that the disease had been raging for several weeks before an outbreak was reported in my area. As a consequence, by the time the disease occurred there, the Army had been involved and the Government had sorted out their methods of culling and disposal. The culling in my constituency was well handled by the Army, but I know that that is a real issue in many other areas. Again, I hope that the inquiries that will be held will look at that matter.
	The question of when the Army should be brought in is crucial to future consideration of how such outbreaks should be handled. I believe that the Northumberland report—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a general debate on foot and mouth disease. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confine his remarks to the impact of the disease on his constituency.

George Osborne: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall briefly round off my remarks by saying that none of the matters that I have set out can be dealt with by the various inquiries that the Government have set up. People in my constituency do not understand why a full and independent public inquiry will not be held. Such inquiries have been held to investigate rail disasters and the bovine spongiform encephalopathy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is rather a long rounding off.

George Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I shall now focus on the present, and on the future. There are four issues that directly affect my constituency, and which cause great distress and hardship for my farmers and rural business.
	The first matter is the heavy financial losses suffered by many of my farmers. Although the disease did not break out on their farms, their businesses were all but destroyed by the Government's movement restrictions. I shall give one example out of dozens in my constituency. In June, I went to see Mr. Ken Gee on his farm in Mobberley. Those who know my constituency will know that Mobberley is some distance from the locations where outbreaks of the disease occurred, but Mr. Gee was as badly hit as almost any farmer in the constituency. When I visited his farm, he showed me two prize cows. In early February, he had agreed to sell them for a couple of thousand pounds. However, the Government's movement restrictions came into force a few days before they were due to be sold, and the animals could not be moved anywhere. By the time of my visit, the cows were more than 30 months old, and therefore unsellable under the Government's BSE regulations. They were good only for the over-30-months scheme. They were worth a fraction of what Mr. Gee had budgeted for and, as a result, his farm suffered a financial loss which was, for him, considerable. The reason has nothing to do with the way in which Mr. Gee runs his farm or conducts his biosecurity arrangements. It has everything to do with the combination of two, quite understandable, Government regulations. One prevented cattle movements in the midst of the epidemic and the other, for good human health reasons, prevented the sale for consumption of cattle over 30 months of age
	In a written question last week, I asked the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), whether farmers like Ken Gee, who have suffered heavy losses solely because of the Government's regulations, would receive any compensation. I received this answer:
	"The Government have considered very carefully whether it would be appropriate to pay compensation for losses incurred on cattle which went beyond the 30 month age limit because of movement restrictions imposed during the earlier part of the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. We have concluded that it would not . . . The Government do not compensate farmers, or businesses, for other, indirect losses."—[Official Report, 21 November 2001; Vol. 375, c.315 W.]
	In other words, the Government have, by deliberate—albeit understandable—action made someone's property all but worthless, and they will not provide compensation. Why not? Why have they reached this conclusion? I should be grateful for the Minister's explanation.
	I have used Mr. Gee's two cows as a simple and single example of one of the many thousands of ways in which the Government's foot and mouth regulations have caused huge losses to farmers in my constituency and across the country who are not directly touched by the epidemic. Indeed, it is commonplace in farming circles these days to remark that in many ways it was better to have the disease than not to have it. I heard that myself when I visited the National Farmers Union in Chelford a couple of weeks ago. The farms that were infected went through the trauma and shock, which I do not underestimate, of seeing their livestock destroyed, but at least they received full compensation, their business was kept afloat and cash flow was maintained. Those who did not have the disease on their farm but were next to areas being culled may have suffered almost as much trauma and loss of business but they have received nothing, and many of them in my constituency face ruin.

Alun Michael: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but he said one thing that could be open to misinterpretation. He is right that farmers whose animals were culled received compensation. He then referred to cash flow. Compensation was not paid for loss of income for farmers, any more than it was for other businesses that were affected. That is a clear dividing line.

George Osborne: I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. What I meant by cash flow was that they had money going through their bank account. Many other farmers who did not have the epidemic on their property have had no money flowing through their bank account: on the contrary, money has been flowing out of their bank account.
	The first issue relating to the impact of foot and mouth in my constituency is the large indirect loss that so many of my farmers incurred as a result of the Government's emergency regulations. What do the Government propose to do to help them? Without help, some of them will simply go to the wall.
	The second issue is support for rural businesses and tourism in my constituency, which continue to suffer great hardship. I am grateful to the English Tourism Council, which sent me a letter when it saw that I had secured this Adjournment debate. It makes it clear that the problems in my constituency are shared by many other constituencies, with a projected overall loss in England of £5.2 billion. However, this is not the place to go into the broader effects of the foot and mouth epidemic on the English tourism industry. I will concentrate instead on Tatton.
	I am not sure whether the Minister has ever been to Stockley working farm at Arley in the course of his duties. If he has not, I invite him to do so. This summer, I visited Mark Walton, who runs the working farm with his family. Mark Walton has done everything that every Agriculture Minister for the past decade has been urging farmers to do.

Nicholas Winterton: Diversify.

George Osborne: He has diversified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says from a sedentary position. This May, after two years of preparing to go organic, he finally did so. He has sought to break down the barriers between town and country and to increase our understanding of agriculture. He has established a thriving tourism business on a working farm. So successful has he been that each year, from Easter onwards, 50,000 visitors come from the towns and the cities to his farm. A visit costs £4 for adults and £3 for children, and I venture to suggest that it is about the best value for money that one can get for a day out in Cheshire. Many of the visitors are in school groups from inner-city Manchester and Liverpool who have never seen a farm before.
	The farm has 50,000 visitors a year, but not this year. This year, not a single visitor has come to Stockley working farm and not a single pound of income has been earned by this once thriving rural tourist attraction. It has been closed to the public since February as a result of the foot and mouth restrictions.
	I am delighted to say—this may be an opportunity for the Minister to put it in his diary—that Stockley will open its doors for three special weekends in the run-up to Christmas. They will be fantastic days out for children and adults alike, and I hope that many thousands of people will come to enjoy them. None the less, however successful those Christmas specials are, they will not come close to making up for the £200,000 of income lost this year. They will be of little comfort to the 50 or so people who would have worked part time at Stockley this summer, but none of whom the farm has been able to employ this year. Losing 50 jobs in a rural area such as Arley is a huge blow to the local economy. It is a tragedy in human terms to the families who rely on that summer work.
	Since foot and mouth hit, Mark Walton has done everything by the book at Stockley. He has applied for special grants from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; he has sought advice from business links; and he has spent hours putting together an application to Cheshire county council's rural recovery taskforce. He has not asked for large sums of money or for massive compensation. All he wants is a little help to enable him to promote the special Christmas weekends at Stockley.

Mark Francois: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is parallel between what happened in his constituency of Tatton and what happened in my constituency of Rayleigh? If I can explain briefly, Marsh Farm country park which was very much orientated towards children—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

George Osborne: I am sure that my hon. Friend's point about the many rural tourist attractions and working farms across the country that have been hit would have been a good one. What happened at Stockley working farm has no doubt been repeated all over the country. I would have drawn the terms of the debate a little more widely if I had known that I would have been able to detain the House for so long. However, I did not know that, so I shall proceed.

Nicholas Winterton: I must inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my constituency is adjacent to Tatton and it is in the same borough.
	My hon. Friend waxes lyrical about a particular farm and its activities. Is he aware that a member of that worthy farming family, which has taken such initiatives, appeared at a seminar that I attended in my hon. Friend's constituency at Quarry Bank mill in Styal. It was promoted by Macclesfield borough council and was about healthy eating and healthy food sourced locally. The farm and farming family to which my hon. Friend referred have done everything possible in their power to help themselves and to serve the public.

George Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to the House's attention the excellent meeting at Quarry Bank mill about which I have heard good reports. The mill is another excellent tourist attraction and I encourage the Minister to visit it if he is ever in Cheshire.
	My hon. Friend's point about the Walton family and Stockley is the one that I made. They have done everything by the book. In a previous incarnation, I was a special adviser at the late lamented Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I remember helping to write speeches for NFU annual conferences. We advised farmers to diversify and to go organic, but all that happened at Stockley working farm. All it wants is a little bit of money to promote its special Christmas openings, but it is not getting a penny. It is receiving no support from the Government and nothing from the county council's rural recovery taskforce, which is sad because we are friendly with the council. The only help that Stockley working farm received throughout the entire year was some welcome emergency rate relief from Macclesfield borough council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I know so well. The farm also received a £200 cheque from a member of the public who felt more sympathy for its plight than the Government do.
	The Government talk of a rural recovery and helping rural communities to help themselves. Ministers from the Prime Minister down talk of encouraging diversification, but for many rural farm businesses in my constituency it has been just that this year—all talk. I want to know when we can expect to see some action and obtain some help for businesses such as Stockley farm.
	My third issue relates to the assistance—or, indeed, the lack of assistance—that the Government are providing to Macclesfield borough council. Earlier this summer, under Special Grant Report (No. 86), Ministers decided to help the local authorities that they said had been particularly affected by foot and mouth. As the Minister knows, that help comes in the form of a rebate for emergency rate relief that is provided by local authorities for hard-hit rural businesses, exactly the kind of emergency rate relief that Macclesfield borough council was able to provide to Stockley working farm.
	I was fortunate to be on the Standing Committee that considered the special grant in July. Indeed, it was my first Standing Committee. I said that I welcomed the valuable support for local councils that were dealing with the impact of the disease. What I could not understand then, and cannot understand now, is why Macclesfield borough council alone among the six borough councils of Cheshire does not qualify for the support. It is nonsensical. Of the 16 or 17 outbreaks in Cheshire, four occurred within the borough council area and a further five occurred within a mile or two of the administrative boundary. In other words, nine of the 16 cases in Cheshire, which have had a huge impact on the farmers and rural businesses in the Macclesfield borough council area, do not qualify for help because the council does not qualify for help.
	By contrast, Chester City council and Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council—neither of which have had to cope with a single outbreak—have been designated as foot and mouth affected areas and receive Government support. The Minister explained in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on 26 July that unlike Ellesmere Port and Chester, Macclesfield borough council did not qualify because it was not rural enough. He said:
	"These arrangements have been designed to target help in those areas where it is most needed. The additional funding is available to the English authorities that are wholly or mainly rural".
	That has to be one of the most bizarre and illogical decisions ever taken in Whitehall. I implore the Minister to visit Cheshire and see with his own eyes the difference between the miles of farmland in the Macclesfield borough council area and the miles of petrochemical works in the Ellesmere Port area, which is not, by anyone's definition, a rural area.

Richard Bacon: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I am interested in what he says about Ellesmere Port and its vistas of petrochemical plants. Does he agree that the main criterion for financial assistance should not be the degree of ruralness, if there is such a word, but the degree of the impact of foot and mouth?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is correct. The Minister's letter also said that 151 English rural borough councils had been provided with financial support, but there is no distinction between those which have been hit by foot and mouth and those which have not, and those parts of the country where there was no outbreak and those were there were heavy outbreaks. That is illogical. If my hon. Friend has not been to Ellesmere Port, I am happy for him to visit my constituency, from where we can get in the car and drive to Ellesmere Port to see that it is not a rural area. It could not possibly be a rural area as there are no green fields. It has a good shopping centre and many petrochemical works.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Will he emphasise to the Minister that his constituency and part of the borough of Macclesfield make up the most heavily livestocked area in Cheshire? It is extraordinary that an area that is overwhelmingly rural and agricultural should not qualify for business assistance under rate relief, whereas, as my hon. Friend said, huge urban areas such as Chester and Ellesmere Port do. That is nonsense, but the Minister was not prepared to do anything about it.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember that we both sought, but were unable to secure, meetings with the Minister and the chief executive of Macclesfield borough council to put our case. The situation is crazy, and it confirms the worst suspicions of many of those who live in my borough council area that some people in Whitehall have never left the M25 area and know about no other part of the country than that just a few hundred metres from this place.
	I commend Macclesfield borough council for the sterling job that it has done in providing emergency rate relief for hard-hit rural businesses out of its own pocket. However, with the proper Government support that it deserves, it could be doing even more, and that is a great tragedy. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to reconsider the council's status under Special Grant Report (No. 86) because it just does not make sense.
	The fourth and final issue, and perhaps the most important and pressing, arises from the impact of foot and mouth disease on livestock markets. Again, I shall illustrate my point with an example from Tatton. Chelford, in the south of the constituency, is one of the largest livestock markets in the country. The last sale of real livestock to be held at Chelford took place on 22 February, nine months ago. Since then the auctioneers have lost, at the very least, more than £500,000 in lost commission on sales. Five full-time people have been made redundant, and 19 part-time people, almost all from low-income families, have also lost their jobs. Many other small businesses, which relied on the market trade for their income, have closed, including the country clothing stall, the fencing supplier, the hedging man and the small Land Rover dealer. I am not overstating the case when I say that the closure of the livestock auction at Chelford has torn the heart out of the rural community in that part of Cheshire.
	We all understand why markets in England had to be closed immediately the disease was discovered. Indeed, as I have already argued, they should have been closed a couple of days earlier. We understand also why they had to remain closed while the epidemic raged, but no one can understand why English and Welsh livestock markets are still closed today, two months after the last confirmed foot and mouth case in the whole country and long after similar livestock markets in Scotland and Northern Ireland have reopened.
	As Mr. Rodney Bacon of the north-west NFU said in a letter to me last week:
	"Cheshire farmers retained their stock and have gone through a lengthy period of restrictions on stock movements . . . The key must be the re-opening of livestock markets. They are an essential element of the chain, especially for farm to farm movements."
	Alan Gardiner, the chairman of the Cheshire county NFU, phoned me today because he knew that I was leading this debate and emphasised that the reopening of the livestock markets is now the most important issue facing local farmers.
	To an extent, Chelford market has taken matters into its own hands. Last month it began holding digital auctions in which sellers could look at digital photographs of the stock. I am happy to pay tribute to the fact that one of the Government's rural recovery schemes even contributed a couple of hundred pounds to provide the digital camera. I am glad to say that the auctions have been a moderate success, but I have to tell the Minister that they may pose a much greater risk to biosecurity than live auctions.
	According to farmers to whom I have spoken in preparation for this debate, buyers do not, of course, rely on the digital photograph but go from farm to farm to check out the stock. That poses enormous risks of cross-farm contamination. If everyone went to Chelford market, they would be registered and disinfected together and be able to be traced if there were ever a problem. None of those measures applies to a digital auction.
	Despite the overwhelming case for reopening livestock markets such as Chelford, they are still closed. What is more, they have been given no idea from the Government about when they might open. As Gwyn Williams, partner of Chelford market, said in a letter to me last week:
	"A great many farmers in your constituency will, in normal times, market their livestock through our auction sales at Chelford Agricultural Centre."
	He then says, as I have pointed out, that the market has not been held since February. He continues:
	"Despite regular meetings being held with DEFRA, we are now no nearer finding out when we will be able to reopen livestock markets nationally, or, indeed, under what conditions we will be expected to operate.
	All businesses have to plan for the future and we are no different. We need to investigate possible further investment, decide upon employment issues including staff requirements and possibly reorganise the way in which we run some of our non agricultural auction sales . . . To date, despite a multitude of proposals having been put to DEFRA by our National Livestock Auctioneers' Association and despite several promises having been received from DEFRA, we have received no draft conditions for the reopening of markets post FMD, nor have we received any clear signal as to when, provided there are no further cases, we will be able to reopen."
	With the indulgence of the House, I should like to read more of the letter. It is extremely well written and makes the points more elegantly than I could. It continues:
	"All this is extremely frustrating. Very few businesses can survive for this period of time when approximately 70 per cent. of their turnover has been removed. As you may be aware, we have made several redundancies and laid off quite a number of full time and part time staff, a situation which is common to most livestock markets throughout the UK.
	The auctioneering industry is under greater pressure now than ever, not only for economic reasons, but also, it would appear, from several vociferous pressure groups who are against the reopening of livestock auctions."
	Mr. Williams makes a good point; there is a strong rumour afoot in the farming community that not reopening livestock auctions is part of a secret DEFRA plan to restructure the industry. The Minister might use this opportunity to quash such stories, which I am sure are untrue.
	Mr. Williams goes on:
	"I would be grateful if you could take up the cudgels upon our behalf. There appears to be a concerted move within government and DEFRA to pass the blame for the foot and mouth disease epidemic onto the farming and livestock market industry. Every utterance about livestock markets concerns some reference to the part which they played in the spread of the disease.
	It would be helpful if it could be pointed out quite clearly to all those in authority that neither the farming industry nor the livestock market industry played any part whatsoever in the introduction of foot and mouth disease into the UK."
	Mr. Williams is of course referring to an entirely separate debate about food import controls. Many people in this country do not understand why the Government do not introduce them.
	The letter ends:
	"As you can tell from the tone of this letter, I, along with other livestock auctioneers throughout England and Wales, am becoming increasingly frustrated at what appear to be delaying tactics by DEFRA concerning the reopening of markets, for whatever motives they may have. Markets are already up and running in Scotland and in Northern Ireland and obviously the longer we are shut, the more difficult it will be for us to regain levels of trade previously enjoyed.
	In the interests of promoting and protecting the whole rural business community, it is essential that livestock auctions are reopened as soon as possible and, through our National Livestock Auctioneers' Association, we are attempting to garner support from all the major farming organisations.
	I would be grateful if you could do what you can in order to assist in putting pressure upon Ministers and DEFRA to make some positive contribution to promoting the reopening of markets."
	I read that letter at length because it raises such important points. I should be very grateful if the Minister responded to Mr. Gwyn Williams' points.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend has done well to secure this debate on behalf of his constituents. He paints a sombre picture of conditions in his constituency resulting from the outbreak. Will he remind the House how long it has been since an outbreak of foot and mouth has been recorded in his constituency? That would reinforce his message about the time that has elapsed since the last outbreak while Ministers continue to insist that the facilities should not be reopened.

George Osborne: As I said earlier, the last outbreak of foot and mouth in my constituency occurred on 29 May—a full six months ago—yet Chelford market remains closed, as does every other livestock market in England and Wales, even though livestock markets in Scotland and Northern Ireland are open. I recall that Scotland had a large number of cases of foot and mouth. Will the Minister, who has experience of both English and Welsh agriculture, explain why English and Welsh livestock markets are being treated differently from livestock markets in other parts of the United Kingdom? He must end the damaging uncertainty and give a clear signal as to when livestock markets in England and Wales will reopen, because businesses cannot continue in such uncertainty.

Richard Bacon: In speaking about livestock markets, my hon. Friend paints a picture of administration by DEFRA that inspires confidence in no one. In the light of that, does it surprise him that farmers have little confidence in either DEFRA or the proposals now being introduced, which many regard as draconian, in the Animal Health Bill? If DEFRA had a track record of greater administrative competence, it might have gained more trust than it currently has.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In my constituency, DEFRA is regarded with great suspicion—although I recall from my time at MAFF that that Department was not highly regarded by the farming community either. There is an extraordinarily high degree of suspicion among farmers in my constituency about what DEFRA is up to.
	There is also great frustration because of the delays that many of my local farmers have encountered in their dealings with DEFRA. I have sent several letters to the Department to which no replies have been received, and I believe that I have not received replies to several written questions, but my experience pales into insignificance compared with that of farmers I have met throughout the period. They tell me of hours spent on the phone, hitting the redial button, trying to get through on engaged lines, trying to get livestock movement permits, and so on.

Nicholas Winterton: There is one point that my hon. Friend has not yet raised in his excellent speech on behalf of his constituents: it is the current Government's unfortunate record on payments to farmers. If the payments were made on time, farmers would at least have some cash flow, however limited. Will he urge the Minister to make prompt payments to livestock farmers whose life at the moment is hell?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I have been told—I do not know whether it is true; perhaps the Minister can clear up the issue—by my local NFU branch that there are now administrative delays in getting payments to farmers because of bureaucratic problems at DEFRA—

Nicholas Winterton: Strikes.

George Osborne: Whatever the cause, it is creating further hardship for our farmers, so I urge the Minister to sort out the problems. When farmers are expecting a cheque from the Department, there is nothing more frustrating after all the hardship that they have experienced than the failure of the cheque to arrive, owing to simple administrative reasons or industrial action. It is inexcusable that delays continue.
	We had a rather pathetic letter from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who explained that the delays in dealing with correspondence and written questions were due to administrative problems caused by winding up MAFF and creating DEFRA. That begs the question why that was done in the middle of a foot and mouth epidemic. It was a crazy bureaucratic rearrangement. Whatever the arguments are for whether there should be a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it was a crazy thing to do in the middle of a foot and mouth epidemic. Farmers in my constituency are paying a price for those Whitehall shenanigans and rearrangements.

Richard Bacon: On the question of payments, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the issues that exacerbates the problem is the marked contrast between the slowness of the Ministry in paying and the rapid payments that farmers used to secure at livestock markets?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
	I am happy to say that farmers receive pretty prompt payments from Macclesfield borough council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and I know so well. Livestock markets provide immediate income. Indeed, they are vital. A market such as Chelford in my constituency is essential to farm-to-farm sales that keep the cash flow of farms going.
	It would be interesting to hear from the Minister, in the many minutes that are available to him, whether the 21-day restriction that has been imposed on moving animals to markets and then moving them off farms back to markets, and so on, was introduced only for the foot and mouth epidemic. Once the Government finally decide that they can reopen livestock markets, will the 21-day limit go? If it is a more permanent feature, it will remove—I am not sure whether this is the correct agricultural term—liquidity from the market. It will prevent many farmers who move stock to and from livestock markets such as Chelford from carrying on their trade.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend mentions livestock markets, and has referred to the lost commissions of the proprietors of the Chelford market, which amount to about £500,000. Has any estimate been made in my hon. Friend's constituency of the loss suffered by farmers in other rural businesses as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic?

George Osborne: I have not seen any figures, but I imagine that they are considerable. The £500,000 that the Chelford market estimates it has lost relates only to lost auction sale commissions. The market proprietors were expecting commissions and sales to be much improved this year, had it been a normal agricultural year. They have also lost money because stallholders are no longer there, and the same applies to other passing trade.
	A separate problem has been created because the proprietors have had to open a car boot sale on Sundays, which causes great distress to people who live close to the livestock market. There are many direct and indirect costs.
	I shall bring my remarks to an end so that the Minister has plenty of time to respond to them.

Nicholas Winterton: I have not spoken yet.

George Osborne: Indeed. If other Members wish to contribute to the debate, they are more than welcome to do so.
	I hope that the Minister will appreciate that I have tried to be as reasonable as possible in putting the case for my constituents. I have not resorted to party political point scoring—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) laughs, but I have not engaged in an attack on Labour's understanding of the countryside. I have not referred to many of the things that I used to write when preparing the Agriculture Minister's party conference speech, as opposed to his NFU annual conference speech.
	I have tried to bring home to the House, through a series of specific examples from my constituency, the real hardship that foot and mouth continues to cause in the area which I represent six months over the last outbreak, and two months after the last outbreak in the country generally.
	I have not gone on at great length about the recent past—I have not sought to betray entirely the agreement that I made with the Minister's private secretary. Instead, I have spoken of the hardship that farmers who escaped the virus but have not escaped the consequences of it now face. I have talked of the crippling losses to rural businesses, such as Stockley working farm, and made a plea for support for my local council. If any council in Cheshire is rural, it is my borough council. Most important, I have urged the Government to reopen the livestock markets that are vital to the revival of agriculture in Britain. In the remaining 40 minutes, I look forward to hearing about my constituency from my colleagues and to hearing the Minister's response.

Nicholas Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you represent a rural area. While in the Chair, inevitably you have to be impartial, but I am sure that you will have recognised many of the problems of your own constituency in what my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, even though Cheshire is much more livestock-oriented than the east of the country.
	I support entirely the case advanced by my hon. Friend. I must emphasise both to him and the Minister the fact that I have represented an agricultural rural constituency for 30 years in this place. In addition, I come from a family that has been closely associated with farming for more than 150 years, so I speak with understanding and knowledge of the countryside, rural communities, farming and agriculture. I used to accompany my late father onto farms when I was only three or four years old, so I have a great and close affinity with farmers. What my hon. Friend said about the farmers of Tatton and their present position is accurate to the word, the letter, the crossed t and the dotted i.
	From time to time, I fear, the Minister seems to believe that Opposition Members are making up stories about the problems faced by their farmers. As I understand it, he represents a central Cardiff constituency; if there is a farmer in it, I should be surprised. Perhaps he will say that there is but, as far as I know, there is not. I hope, therefore, that he will listen to those of us who speak on behalf of farmers and support the case that my hon. Friend made on behalf of his farmers.
	The Macclesfield and district branch of the NFU and all the associated NFU branches in the area support 100 per cent. the views expressed by my hon. Friend. I want to emphasise that because we are not here, as he said, to make party political points. We are lobbying and making representations on behalf of farmers and those who work in the countryside. Perhaps it is only in times of crisis and war that the countryside and those who work in it to maintain it and produce food are properly appreciated. The farmers of Tatton, like those in many other parts of the country, have gone through a war—the foot and mouth epidemic, which hit them horribly.
	Like my hon. Friend, I shall refer to Chelford market. I hope that he will not mind me saying that, for 25 years, the market, which he described in detail, along with the valuable role that it fulfils—was part of my constituency. I know Marshall's—Frank R. Marshall as it used to be called—in Chelford market well. Even now, with the permission of my hon. Friend, I frequently visit the market because, of course, it is important not only to the farmers of Tatton, but the farmers of my Macclesfield constituency as well.
	On the importance of Chelford market, not only does it pay regularly and promptly the farmers who bring in their stock to sell at the agricultural centre in Chelford, but it gives them a fair and transparent price for their stock. They are not held over a barrel by the large superstores, which have done so much damage to farmers, particularly in recent times to the farmers in Tatton and in Cheshire as a whole.
	I hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs, who is to reply to the debate, will respond positively to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton that the Government announce the opening of cattle markets and auctions in the immediate future, if we are to save many of them from liquidation and going out of business.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who is the shadow agriculture spokesman, told me tonight that, regrettably, there is talk that two important cattle auction markets may be closing. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton asks me from a sedentary position not to name them, but they are important auction markets with an excellent reputation, and they may well close. That must not happen to Chelford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton.
	Sadly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said, the Minister for Rural Affairs was not prepared to meet a delegation from Macclesfield about the second matter that I shall discuss—the business rate relief scheme resulting from the foot and mouth epidemic. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will announce promptly that the auction markets, particularly Chelford, will be opened at an early date, to prevent further financial hardship for those who run that excellent auction market, which is so important to Cheshire and a much wider area, and also for the benefit of the livestock farmers of Tatton and the adjoining constituencies.
	I am happy to give way if the Minister wishes to intervene. If not, I shall move on to the matter which probably prompted him almost to rise: his reluctance and that of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, myself and the chief executive of the borough council when we requested a meeting to express our concern about Macclesfield borough's ineligibility for assistance under the scheme.

Alun Michael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is a little repetitious on that topic. Will he acknowledge that it was courteously explained to him on a number of occasions that the topic does not fall within my portfolio of responsibilities, and that he was directed instead to the Minister with that responsibility, who responded to him exhaustively and conclusively on the topic?

Nicholas Winterton: I am afraid that the Minister did not reply exhaustively, and certainly not to my satisfaction. The Minister for Rural Affairs is aware that the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), when there was a slightly different departmental structure in Government, had agreed to meet me, even during the general election campaign. Unfortunately, that did not prove convenient for the Minister for the Environment or me. When I sought to follow up the matter immediately after the election, it was initially dealt with by the Minister for Rural Affairs, but perhaps conveniently for him, the responsibility was transferred to the Minister in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I must repeat that I am afraid that, as a senior Member of the House, I would have expected a Minister to meet me at my request—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have now regained my breath in my ferocious attack on the Minister. When I rightly had to resume my seat, so that you could carry out the procedures of the House, I was saying that, although the responsibility for meeting me and dealing with the matter was passed to a more junior Minister in another Department, that Minister was not prepared to meet me—a senior Member of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and the chief executive of the borough council. I believe that, if Ministers are seriously requested to meet Members of Parliament who have an important issue to raise on behalf of their constituents, they are beholden to find time to do so. I say to the Minister that even the Prime Minister of our country, speaking today from the Dispatch Box, agreed to meet me on a matter that relates to my constituency. I must say that if the Prime Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, is prepared to meet me, I should have thought that a junior Minister would be prepared to meet any Member of the House.

Alun Michael: I can answer robustly for the reason why I referred the hon. Gentleman to another Department: it was not merely another Department, but the correct one. The Minister whom he says declined to meet him did so on reasonable grounds, but is not present to respond to his remarks. I suggest that he should take up the matter with that colleague rather than in this debate, which is, as I understand it, about the impact of foot and mouth disease in Tatton.

Nicholas Winterton: I am afraid that that is the very matter that I am now discussing, as I am dealing with the impact of the foot and mouth epidemic on Macclesfield borough council, whose area includes the constituency of Tatton. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, who has advanced a brilliant case in this debate, myself and the chief executive of the borough council, who could have given an accurate breakdown of the costs in the Macclesfield borough under rate relief, wanted to present the case on behalf of the borough of which Tatton is a part.

Richard Bacon: I, too, have read on my Order Paper that this debate is about the impact of foot and mouth disease in Tatton. I am wondering, therefore, whether the right Minister is present to respond. Is it correct for the Minister who is present to respond to the debate, or is this another DEFRA cock-up?

Nicholas Winterton: It is a governmental cock-up. Unfortunately, responsibilities for dealing with this matter lie—I shall give the Minister credit for this—with two Departments. There is no doubt that the impact of foot and mouth on Tatton relates also to the Government's ability or willingness to assist an area that has been badly hit because of restrictions on movement imposed as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is paying a lot of attention and giving a lot of time to one specific topic. He referred a moment ago to the wish of the chief executive of the borough council to provide knowledge and expertise to the Minister at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and that that Department was losing out by not taking up his invitation. Can he therefore explain why the borough council did not respond to the request made by the Local Government Association for information on the number and extent of applications for hardship rate relief in relation to foot and mouth disease when those matters were being discussed between the Local Government Association and that Department?

Nicholas Winterton: I can explain that very simply. My borough council and its chief executive, Mr. David Parr, were dealing at the time with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and me. The borough council believed—wrongly, it now appears—that we had more direct access to Ministers than local government organisations did. As the information that would have been given to the local authority concerned had been provided to my hon. Friend and me, why would there be any wish to duplicate it? I believe that I have given the right answer.
	I still hope to this day that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will be prepared to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, the chief executive of Macclesfield borough council, Mr. David Parr, and me to discuss this matter, even at this late stage. Perhaps, when the Minister replies, he will tell us that he will request the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to arrange a meeting with us.
	I hope that the Minister has heard the last part of my speech, and I hope that he will deal with it when he replies. I want to give him sufficient time to reply on this important matter relating to the Tatton constituency and other areas of our countryside, so I shall say only that this is an important issue. Farmers are still suffering, and in Tatton, they still have severe cash flow problems. As my hon. Friend rightly said, those few farmers who had their herds of livestock culled are in a much better position than those who did not, and who have had no cash flow at all because of the restriction on livestock movements. That relates not only to the Tatton constituency but to many others, and particularly to the adjoining constituency of Macclesfield, which I have the honour to represent.
	Please will the Minister accept that, although there may not have been an outbreak in this country for some two months, the financial problems and the trauma of what those farmers have experienced still face the farming industry, particularly the livestock sector that dominates the constituencies of Tatton and Macclesfield? At this late stage, will the Minister be understanding of that, and positive in what he is about to say in response to this debate?

Mark Francois: I shall be brief, to allow the Minister the maximum time to reply to the large number of serious points that have been made. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on his speech. He spoke for more than 45 minutes on the plight of farmers in his constituency, and expressed polite but firm frustration at the situation there. Having heard him, I must say that that situation sounds very difficult, not just for the farmers, but for the other businesses which rely directly or indirectly on the farming community for their livelihood. My hon. Friend performed a good service on behalf of his constituents this evening, and I hope that when the Minister replies, he will do so in a manner that fully and properly acknowledges that.

Alun Michael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing this debate, and on the style with which he introduced it and occupied the considerable amount of time that was rather unexpectedly available to him. I shall explain why I disagree with a great deal that he said, but I accept that he made his points reasonably, and I shall respond in a like manner. His approach obviously had a positive effect on the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), which made the debate—so far, at least—pleasurable as well.
	The hon. Member for Tatton confessed to association with the farming policies and method of presentation of Ministers in a Conservative Administration, which took the edge off his more general criticisms. I had hoped that his experience would lead to restrained references to the officials who serve the Government and the public. I pay tribute to the enormous commitment and dedication shown by the hard-working staff who not only serve the farming communities in ordinary times, but put in immense extra effort during the foot and mouth period. Indeed, many civil servants from other Departments came, or were seconded, to contribute in the front line.
	The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he questions the ethos of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As he served there, he is better placed than I to comment, but I hope that he agrees that that question mark does not hang over the dedication and hard work of individual civil servants or their willingness to serve the public.

George Osborne: I apologise to Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions officials if I strayed over the line in attacking them. I know from my time at MAFF that they are extremely hard working and that they have dealt with one crisis after another. Indeed, they are badly put upon by politicians and the wider community alike. They do not deserve that.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for responding. I had hoped that he would take that view and we have put the point on the record across parties.

Richard Bacon: This evening, I received an e-mail from a solicitor who dealt with many foot and mouth outbreaks and the battle between the Ministry and farmers that resulted from them. She says that there are indeed some Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials who emerge with great credit, and they had to work hard in trying circumstances. However, she added, "But not many."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is widening the issue. I would be grateful if the Minister did not respond in general terms.

Alun Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have made the cross-party point about the dedication of officials. Many are developing their talents within the new ethos of DEFRA, and I hope that that continues to be the case.
	The hon. Member for Tatton rightly commented on the fact that foot and mouth disease has devastated rural communities everywhere. There was particular pressure on areas with a large number of cases, such as Cumbria, Devon, North Yorkshire and so on, but the damage to farming communities and the rural economy applies everywhere. The example of Tatton is replicated in many constituencies across the country.
	For that reason, there will be a warm welcome in Tatton and elsewhere for the news that the designation of the last remaining foot and mouth infected area in England will be lifted at midnight. That landmark move follows extensive blood testing of sheep and clinical examination of cattle in the Brough and Kirkby Stephen area of Cumbria. It marks the end of a massive blood testing programme in the 3 km protection zones.
	The successful completion of serological testing in the remaining 3 km protection zones over the past few weeks led to the release of over 17,000 farms from infected area status. There are still restrictions and care needs to be taken, but that is good news, not just for Cumbria, but right across the country. I take care in making those comments, because we need to be sure that everything is done with care right to the end. We must ensure that foot and mouth disease does not return. In the 1960s outbreak, there were no additional cases for some 25 days, but the disease returned. We need to hesitate to celebrate, but there is good news, which will be welcomed across the House.
	The impact of foot and mouth disease has been devastating in the way that I described, but that must be put in context. In October, unemployment in Tatton was 1.5 per cent., which is down 7.9 per cent. since October 2000. In Macclesfield, the figure in October was 1.3 per cent., which is down 12.5 per cent. since October 2000. Unemployment in England generally is more than double those levels.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister's figures are accurate, and reflect the ebullience of the area that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and I represent. Does the Minister accept, however, that many who work in the countryside are self-employed, and that their problems are therefore unlikely to be reflected in unemployment statistics?

Alun Michael: I certainly would not suggest that unemployment statistics show the whole picture, and I did not do so in this instance. I was trying to put in context the difficulties experienced in the rural economy. I feel that we should take account of the figures, and recognise that unemployment levels are low—which, I think, is testimony not just to the efforts of the constituents of the hon. Member for Tatton, but to the successes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government. Perhaps it was too much to expect the hon. Member for Macclesfield to join me in paying that tribute. We can achieve a certain amount of unity across the Floor of the House, but at some point it becomes unrealistic to hope for consensus.
	The hon. Member for Tatton mentioned payment delays. Let me put the record straight. There were delays, particularly in April and May, owing to the sheer number of payments that had to be made. There was an enormous burden of work, but the resulting backlog was eliminated in May. The target for payments is three weeks, and is now mostly being met. All but about £170,000 of the estimated £1.2 billion has now been paid. It should also be mentioned that farmers are allowed 14 days in which to decide whether they want to appeal against valuation of slaughtered animals: that in itself affects the time it takes to deal with payments.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the 21-day rule. The rule was introduced to combat foot and mouth disease, and will certainly apply until the disease is eradicated; what will happen after that is still being discussed. It is a powerful disease-control tool in the process of slowing the spread of the disease, but we are happy to examine counter-arguments carefully, especially as we reach a point at which we can progressively lift some of the restrictions.
	When considering the way in which rural communities have responded to foot and mouth, we should bear in mind the unity of purpose that has emerged. That often happens during emergencies, or when there is particular pressure. I chaired the rural taskforce that examined the impact of the disease across the community—especially the economic impact and the impact on non-farming business, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I thought that by the time we started to draw up the report, the unity that had been achieved might well be dissipated: individual members might promote, for instance, the case for local government, the case for the National Farmers Union or the case for tourism. It was a genuinely positive experience to observe the unity of purpose and the attempt to secure consensus, and I think that that is reflected in the report that we published on 18 October.
	Farmers have acknowledged the importance of tourism to the rural economy. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the impact on tourism in his constituency. I am not sure that, a year ago, we would have heard so much about the interdependence of different elements of the rural economy; certainly I did not hear such comments then, but they should be encouraged. The Department seeks to work with colleagues across Government—I have been working particularly with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in his capacity as tourism Minister—to find ways of helping the recovery of tourism in rural communities.
	There is a fine line to be drawn. We want to be confident that the disease has been eradicated and that we can plan for the future, but meanwhile we should send clear messages about the attractions of, for instance, working farms. We want people to feel that they can return to the countryside, and by enjoying themselves there, give financial support to those attractions. I hope that we judge that moment right and that we shall have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in seeking to send that positive message. Both farming and non-farming businesses need recovery and to get back to business as normal more than anything else. I hope that the House can unite on that point.
	The hon. Member for Tatton also mentioned the creation of DEFRA. The change has created a strong major Department whose central pillar of responsibility is to promote the interests of rural communities in Tatton and elsewhere. That was not the situation before. The Department also links responsibility for environment and conservation with responsibility for farming and food, which is to the benefit of all rural communities. I also pay tribute, in the case of Tatton, to the North West Regional Development Agency for the way in which it has switched priorities and supported initiatives to help rural communities. I shall return to some of those points in more detail if time allows.
	The hon. Gentleman, however, also referred to what he described as draconian new legislative measures. Those measures have recently been debated in this place and I shall not seek to go over old ground. I simply say that the measures are not draconian but practical. If we are so unfortunate as to have a fresh outbreak we need to be able to nip it in the bud. Let us hope that there is not a fresh outbreak. However, if there were one, I am sure that Opposition Members, including those who spoke in this debate, would be the first to castigate a Government who had failed to ensure that the necessary powers are available.
	There were culling delays in some places, and the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the need for speed when culling is necessary. However, delays were caused in Brecon and elsewhere when culling was challenged, thereby extending the time in which the outbreak continued to spread. I simply ask Opposition Members to consider the alternative and what they would say if circumstances were to change. Let us hope, however, that they do not.
	The hon. Gentleman also pondered whether foot and mouth disease could have been spread by the pyres which, as he said, proved to be such a dramatic symbol of the disease's impact in the early stages of the outbreak. A risk assessment was made of whether foot and mouth disease could be spread by pyres, and veterinary risk assessments of course look very carefully at the veterinary evidence, but that assessment concluded that the risk of transmission by that means was very small indeed. There has been no evidence whatsoever that transmission, or any individual case, was caused by it. I therefore hope that we can put that issue to one side, although I am sure that the inquiries examining the science and the procedures that were followed may well wish to look at the evidence and will reach their own conclusions.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned tourism. He also mentioned a working farm that had diversified and established a thriving tourism business. I have visited many such locations which were, as he said, devastated by foot and mouth disease. Their situation is one of the reasons why, in the business recovery fund, we have provided for help for marketing among the other forms of help available to businesses that have been affected by foot and mouth disease.
	We have also taken very seriously the issue of food import controls. However, we need to examine the evidence carefully as there has sometimes been an inclination to generalise on that topic. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only DEFRA but the Government generally are taking a strong interest in ensuring that those controls are as strong as they should be.
	The third of the four main points that the hon. Gentleman made—although, as my reply indicates, he managed to touch on an enormous number of other points too—concerned Macclesfield borough council. The hon. Member for Macclesfield also sought to make that point.
	It is necessary to point out that rate relief is available to all businesses suffering hardship because of the outbreak of FMD, other than farms that are already fully exempt from rates. That includes rateable businesses in Macclesfield. Central Government funds at least 75 per cent. of the cost in all cases, so it would be wrong to suggest sweepingly that the Government have not done anything to help.
	The hon. Gentleman is also aware of the debate that took place on the special grant report. Clearly, authorities that are not predominantly rural will have a wider spread of economic activity and so a lower proportion of businesses would be affected by FMD. The pressure on those authorities would be less, so those authorities should have proportionately fewer cases of hardship relief and should not face the same high costs as other authorities.
	We agreed to consider the case for extending the scheme. Much additional information was provided, by the Local Government Association in particular, which went to the trouble of finding out the experiences of the member local authorities to assist with the review. That led to the second special grant report approved on 17 July which extended the scheme to all 151 rural authorities and provided additional help in 37 of those areas worst affected by the disease, based on the number of cases at county level. Both rurality and the specific impact in terms of the number of cases were considered.
	The 151 authorities covered were all wholly or mainly rural areas in England, according to the standard definitions used more widely by the Countryside Agency. Of course, definitions can always be argued over, but much help was provided to Macclesfield, as to other authorities, by the Government. I repeat the point that the borough council did not respond to the LGA's request for information on the number and extent of applications for hardship rate relief related to FMD, even though it was made clear that the Government were willing to consider the case on the basis of that information.

Nicholas Winterton: I actually provided that information to the Government. Do they want it from dozens of sources? I provided the information provided to me by the chief executive of the borough council.

Alun Michael: It was good of the hon. Gentleman to do that. I am not sure on what date he did that, but I make the point again that the case was considered by the Government in terms of the impact on individual local authorities that faced an especially heavy burden, as well as providing help to all local authorities.
	I recognise that Tatton was hard hit by FMD in the context I described earlier.

George Osborne: I recognise that this has been a very short debate, but I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to the points made about the livestock markets in the last two minutes of the debate. My farmers would certainly appreciate his reply.

Alun Michael: I am happy to respond on that point. I was asked why markets in England and Wales are still closed when Scottish ones have re-opened. The last case in Scotland was on 30 May. The last case in Wales was on 12 August and the last case in England was on 30 September. Veterinary and scientific advice is that markets in England and Wales should not re-open until early next year. The timing and conditions for re-opening markets are under active discussion with the Livestock Auctioneers Association. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the issue seriously.
	The association has received draft conditions and has commented on them. The discussion continues with those directly involved. The association is meeting DEFRA officials again tomorrow and stakeholders have been told that market re-opening is under consideration for early in 2002. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no secret plan to do down that or any other part of the rural economy.
	There are many issues on which I could wax more eloquently if I had had the time to reply that the hon. Gentleman took in his introduction, but it is only fair to say that the Government have responded positively to the demands and pressures on the rural economy. We recognise that the impact on farmers and on non-farming businesses has been devastating. That is why we have sought to respond and why we have not—
	The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.